Comments by Sancus
Comment #20646 by Sancus on February 5, 2007 at 11:43 am
From Sullivan:
You will ask: how do I know this was Jesus? Could it not be that it was a force beyond one, specific Jewish rabbi who lived two millennia ago and was executed by the Roman authorities? Yes, and no. I have lived with the voice of Jesus read to me, read by me, and spoken all around me my entire life - and I heard it that day. If I had been born before Jesus' birth, would I have realized this? Of course not. If I had been born in Thailand and raised a Buddhist, would I have interpreted this experience as a function of my Buddhist faith rather than Jesus? If I were a pilgrim right now in Iraq, would I attribute this epiphany to Allah? An honest answer has to be: almost certainly.
But I am a contingent human being in a contingent time and place and I heard Jesus...
Sam's disagreement may be with this last part: the claim that Sullivan is a contingent human being in a contingent space-time. This is opposed to the notion that he is a necessary human being in a necessary space-time.
Michael Shermer wrote a series of five essays called "Glorious Contingency," so he may have some insight into this part of the discussion. They are available at the following link from the Metanexus Institute:
http://www.metanexus.net/metanexus_online/authors/archive_list_by_author.asp?id=27
In any case, I think Sullivan directly and clearly contradicts himself when says that he is a contingent human being and when he says that his faith in God is unchosen. In other words, Sullivan's faith was necessary, not contingent.
He even appears to recognize this contradiction, such that when he attempts to make sense of it, he cannot, and is consequently forced to abandon reason.
I should add that this unchosen belief in God's existence - the "gift" of faith - does not prompt me to lose all doubt in my faith, or to abandon questioning. I have wrestled with all sorts of questions about any number of doctrines that the hierarchy of the church has insisted upon. As a gay man, I have been forced to do this perhaps more urgently than many others - which is one reason I regard my sexual orientation as a divine gift rather than as a "disorder". For me, faith is a journey that begins with the gift of divine revelation but never rests thereafter. It is nourished by a faith community we call the church, and is sustained by the sacraments, prayer, doubt and the love of friends and family. It is informed by reason, but it cannot end in reason.
His being forced to abandon reason is yet again evidence that his position is necessary, and not contingent.
52. Root of All Evil? Discussion
Comment #20461 by Sancus on February 2, 2007 at 5:38 pm
Whoa, the religious nuts are becoming caricatures of themselves... entertaining, if it weren't so deadly serious.
Deadly serious Canadians? Bahaha! :D
Oh, it's probably good for Canada. It's character building.
53. Root of All Evil? Discussion
Comment #20459 by Sancus on February 2, 2007 at 5:32 pm
I love it. I just get so giddy watching all those religious people get their feathers ruffled by one other. Their lack of interest in evidence assures their mutual discomfort. Moths to the flame -- only they just keep burning! Man, that's entertainment.
Mango, I forgot that American television even exists. The net has totally replaced it for me.
I would argue that much better discussion programs appear on C-SPAN than what we have here, just without the commercials and glitz, but then I don't want that to be interpreted as a defense of American television. Even though its paid for by American cable and satellite companies, C-SPAN is available on the web.
Comment #20165 by Sancus on January 31, 2007 at 5:06 pm
Did Sam ever actually concede "the possibility of a truth that is not reducible to empirical proof?"
You are, of course, right to say that there are many different contexts in which a statement about the world can be deemed "true" (or likely to be true) and not all of these are empirical or scientific, narrowly defined.
It's time to broaden our definition of science, then.
There are still cases where we can have empirical truth and science without peer review. They are cases for individuals. It's about time secularists face up to this.
Sam even trips over himself trying to keep from recognizing it.
The point, of course, is that you are not free to believe whatever you want. And people who would avail themselves of such freedom are demonstrably crazy. Consensus really is the gold-standard here, as elsewhere.
Scientific truth is not determined by consensus. It doesn't matter how many people believe something, what percentage of people in a group believe it, or even that no one believes it at all. Consensus is not a scientific term and Sam weakens his argument by presenting it here.
Although, to his credit, he does eventually recognize that science can be performed by an individual, but only for an "exceptional" one.
Consensus, of course, admits of exceptions. It is possible for a solitary genius to have the truth in hand before anyone else realizes it. Eventually, however, others will authenticate his/her results. This is also true of contemplative or classically "mystical" results. Yes, subjective experience is private to a significant degree, but it isn't merely so. Language allows us to form a consensus about what is reasonable to believe even about one's private experiences.
Why do such people have to be "geniuses?" Can't it be anyone?
55. Neil deGrasse Tyson - Death by Black Hole
Comment #20159 by Sancus on January 31, 2007 at 4:32 pm
Tyson is excellent. He really gets science education. His earlier appearance on Point of Inquiry is also good. In it he echoes what I think are the real problems with science education and the way we raise children. We stunt their natural enjoyment for experimentation.
http://www.pointofinquiry.org/?p=63
And the direct download link:
http://libsyn.com/media/pointofinquiry/8-18-06.mp3
56. 'Friends of God' Documentary
Comment #19902 by Sancus on January 30, 2007 at 3:06 pm
I hope videos like these show atheists that any pedagogy based on trust is wrong. Education must follow from experience or it is bereft of learning, much less a foundation for a life of learning.
Who should you trust first, God or the scientists?
Neither! Ask for the evidence.
I fear for children in conventional non-religious schools the same way I fear for them here.
Goodness, I fear for the people in colleges who are taught without experience. They're the victims of a scam and many will spend decades paying for it.
Comment #19891 by Sancus on January 30, 2007 at 1:41 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_change
Accelerating change has to have some mathematical mechanism. If this new model overstates HGT's influence on evolution, then it just means there's more left to be discovered.
Comment #19736 by Sancus on January 29, 2007 at 4:47 pm
Apologies for my late reply!
If you elect to forego peer review you are really claiming that your experiences lay outside of science because science depends on the ability to test and falsify -
How is testing and falsification dependent on peer review? It's not. These things can indeed be done alone, so your statement is untrue. I test and falsify my own claims quite often. I actually find solitude more conducive to this because it allows me the freedom to think of socially unacceptable things, of which there are many. I must throw away about 1000 claims a day. I do not need other people to have an honest experience of my environment. None of us do.
Indeed, I think this reliance on other people for honest experience is what leads to religious belief in the first place, as well as problems in science education, to say nothing of a loss of intellectual independence and self-discipline.
John Phillips, you also make the dependent connection between peer review and falsifiability. Given your other refutation, I can see why you might have these crossed.
I would also refute that secularist are 'frightened of being soft on the idea of foregoing peer review for studying these experiences'. What secularists are frightened of, if you wish to use that word, is personal experience being declared as truth without any evidence to support it.
What has been claimed true for personal experience has been claimed true for personal experience only. It is categorically incorrect to declare that what is true about one's own private experience is true for the private experience of others. Secularists have nothing to fear.
Peer review helps us verify claims about experience that we share. It works best when we do not force experience to be shared, such as in the case of religious indoctrination.
From Logicel
Can a scientist truly exist all by his/herself without peer review?
Yes.
I will even add to this and say that a scientist must exist by his/herself without peer review first. It is a prerequisite for getting the most out of participating in the peer review process.
If an individual uses observation based on self knowledge/experience to learn about themselves via lucid dreaming, meditation, biofeedback, etc, does that constitute scientific knowledge just because some aspects of that approach--such as observation--is used in science?
This is white noise to me. I became lost when you said "observation based on..." Observation is not based on anything. Observation is the base.
In your quest to find a non-theistic handle to attract the people who crave/need to believe in something pure and absolute,...
Admittedly, I did not know that people had such a craving before you said this. The pure and absolute do not need "belief." They are things to be observed.
However, belief is also something to be observed. The observable nature of what we call "belief" is part of the observational absolute. Sometimes people observe their beliefs in psychedelic experiences and talk to Jesus or Krishna or something. Even though these could be powerful experiences, to accept these experiences as sufficient for a look at all experience is categorical laziness. It is scarcely sufficient for a look at the self, much less at others, and vanishingly less for a look at the whole universe. For that reason it is offensive to hear such people claim they know everything.
you need to focus that one can do subjectively based 'soul' searching and fulfillment without violating science.
Definitely. And in order not to violate science, one must do science. A lab coat, a degree, and published journals are not necessary to employ the scientific method.
That such spiritually (and Stephen Fry summed it up excellently on that audio posted recently here, the discussion with Hitchens, Fry's bit came at the end) in itself is not a scientific endeavor is exactly the aspect you want to nourish, to attract folks that need to have a subjective feeling of their uniqueness.
It's not a social/tribal scientific endeavor. The last part of the last statement here is white noise to me again. I do not know what it means to have a subjective feeling of one's own uniqueness, Subjective feelings already are unique, aren't they?
I do not need other scientists to tell me that I'm an individual or indeed anything about my individual experience. In the same manner, I do not need priests, rabbis, politicians, teachers, parents, angels, aliens, super-intelligent transdimensional demigods or the self-described creator of the multi-verse. Nor do I need a science book, the same way I do not need the bible. All I need is my experience. My empirical self is alive in my experience.
It seems silly that I would have to add this, but words are not the totality of experience. Whatever claims that one makes about all experience are highly suspect by default. It does not matter whether these claims come from scientists, priests, or one's self.
Religion, as you know, squashes this search, makes it impossible by subcontracting the soul out to the divine dictator, though the deluded believe that it furthers their search instead of actually leaving themselves 'sans espirit'!
Science on the other hand gives a comforting support to subjective experience by showing how cerebral biochemistry gives way to it.
Cerebral biochemistry already is part of our experience. We own our cerebral biochemistry the same way we own our experience. Indeed, we only know theory of cerebral biochemistry because of our experience. Science depends on experience. Anything that disagrees with experience is abandoned. This is why, more importantly, our experience does not need support.
It's this need for support that I'd like to see abandoned. To say that experience needs support is to pull the rug out from under science. It hurts science education, adds fuel to the fire of magical thinking and religion, encourages the passive acceptance of scientific claims, stifles independent thought, causes people to fear imagination, etc. I could go on for hours. If experience can be said to need any support, it can only be the support of more experience. More experience can come from other people OR through private experimentation. Peer review is not necessary for the act of scientific inquiry, because other people are not required for more experience.
Science leaves the subjectivity up to the subject, it does not dictate what kind of subjectivity in which the subject can indulge. Science gives a natural background to our subjective 'spirituality', guiding us in the right direction by red-flagging the supernatural as a creatively impoverished pit of inanity and uselessness.
You're right, and I agree with everything, except the notion that nature can be seen as a "background." I agree that social/tribal experience of nature can be seen this way, just not the entirety of nature. That seems contradictory and in any case unsatisfying. I want to be and am an active part of nature, connected to everything, a part of everything. My experience is seamlessly integrated with the continuum, and whatever else that might exist which we do not grasp conceptually.
Maybe I have just contradicted myself, by saying that I am part of everything, because earlier I said that any claim about everything is automatically highly suspect. Well, I guess you guys should suspect it then. ;) After all, I do.
Comment #19381 by Sancus on January 26, 2007 at 6:47 pm
From Dogbreath,
You've got me here Sancus, I haven't the faintest clue what you are talking about. Could you enlighten me? Are you saying that science just needs better PR or is it a really deep point that my small brain can't grasp?
Spiritual experiences are not something that can be readily subjected to peer review. Nonetheless, people are curious about these experiences and want to know more about them. What are they to do?
It seems that they turn to religion, which is sad. Religion does not have a peer review process, so truth claims about the experiences will go relatively unchallenged. Scientists recognize these experiences as legitimate, but methods of studying them are another matter. Science relies on peer review and a common language. Private experience therefore seems to be outside its realm.
But it isn't. I do not think peer review is necessary for science. One can still experiment on one's own private experience with the help of skepticism, theory, doubt, and honest appraisals of the evidence. One can experiment alone in meditation, dreaming, or any method of personal examination one sees fit. I even consider this basic form of science as a survival instinct. It is not as sophisticated as physical theory, but it doesn't need to be to help a person explore their consciousness.
Secularists appear afraid to look soft on the idea of forgoing peer review for studying these experiences. But isn't it okay to abandon peer review in the special case of science in one's own private experience? Indeed, shouldn't we encourage a personal honesty; an honesty to one's self?
Many religious and spiritual people are looking for a sense of awe and wonder in life, particularly one that they can experience in themselves, wherever they go. I think that they will find that awe and wonder by recognizing that they can be their own spiritual scientists, and do not need to rely on religion or the opinions of others for the determination of truth claims about their experiences.
Sullivan relies on skepticism and doubt to examine his spiritual experience. Yet, he remains religious, and this is a real shame. Perhaps, if he realized that it was socially acceptable to think on one's own, to be one's own scientist, he would not think that empirical science had limitations.
60. Stephen Fry and Christopher Hitchens debate blasphemy
Comment #19376 by Sancus on January 26, 2007 at 5:30 pm
This is the moronic thinking that I find so scary. We need some "potent enough" violence to wake people up to the fact that religion is not helping them.
No, I do not think we need violence. Definitely not! Please do not think that. You can't ignore the fact, though, that religious people do hate one another and they do resort to violence. I don't see anything moronic in hoping that the violence that results helps them to, you know, no longer resort to such violence?
Obviously, if the problem isn't sovled by violence, it's just that we haven't gotten violent enough. The beatings will continue until morale improves! Lunacy! simple-minded numb-headed lunacy.
Yes, it is lunacy. Remember, religion is lunacy,
But the promise of relief (or just emotional comfort) from suffering is the marketing pitch of religions. When there is a lot of suffering, there are a lot more people to sell to. Suffering need not be the modern-day cause of religion, but it's certainly its key marketing opportunity.
I don't agree. This is a very hedonistic approach to religion and religions are anything but hedonistic. Or, if not hedonistic, this is a Buddhist approach to religion. "Relief of suffering" and "salvation" are not the same thing, especially in Christianity. Suffering is practically glorified.
Golden age of freethought??? A country defined, and in many ways crippled, for the next one hundred years after the civil war by black-white segregation, the formation of terrorist groups such as the Klu-Klux-Klan, and the domination of politics in the South by the Southern Baptist Convention? The war in no way ended the belief system of the southern gentry class; these people still believed themselves to be a righteously priveleged class and still believed that no "black" should pretend to be equal better in ability than any white.
Well, I'm sorry our modest freethought movement did not impress you, but there is more to America than the south, and we got a great deal accomplished during that period.
You are thinking in terms of false dichotomies, winning everything or losing everything, and I should not have to remind you that that's neither healthy nor sound.
To the point: Wars don't change beliefs. There's no reason to believe that a war in Isreal will change the belief systems of anyone involed, and every reason to believe that it will further entrench their faith-head beliefs.
Wars change. They're chaotic, stochastic, uncertain, etc. Sometimes they change everything, so, yes, they do change beliefs. Just not in any masterfully directed manner and not always in a positive one.
I do not know the socio-political dynamics of Israel so I could not even defend Hitchens' specific point here even if I wanted to. And I do not want to. It appears to me that Israel has already been in a state of perpetual war since its creation and that it relies a great deal on religion. All I can do is hope the religion part loses out.
There's no arguement from me that religion can flourish without war, but it does tend to do much better with it than without. The march to war after the 9/11 attacks was a powerful political force solidifying the fundementalist religious base in the United States. Had the United States itself sustained continued ongoing attacks and a real serious threat to its soverignty, do you really think the political atnmosphere here would have been receptive (if not outright intolerant) of the clear thinking Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins or any other voice that suggested Christianity and God were not righteous? It's exactly *because* there has not been a great deal of blood spilled here that rational people are able to speak and be heard
This is pretty ridiculous. I would bet good money that you are not an American. This paragraph exposes a great deal of ignorance about American culture outside of American politics.
I don't see why this needs to have anything to do with Marx, except that he along with dozens of other famous thinkers and scholars have noted a connection - including Freud and apparently Hitchens himself. The simple matter of opportunity for religious marketing to take hold is inescapably obvious. Religion provides comfort (or at least the promise of it); the more a person suffers, the more desperate and susceptible a person is to buy into the sort of comfort that religion promises (and apparently delivers).
It's not a cause and effect, suffering simply provides the sales opportunity.
You still have not provided any evidence whatsoever to support your position.
Freud said that belief in God was a longing for the father. Hitchens to escape fear of death. None of these are dependent on the notion of suffering.
Any comfort you see in religion is probably a byproduct of the service, it is not actually the service. If comfort was what people wanted, they would go to massage parlors, watch TV, and find other ways to pleasure themselves.
So, if you'd like to have a rational discussion about it, I'd like to see some historical evidence. You edited Comment #19338 after I posted after it and changed your original claim. You no longer refer to your history books, but recorded history. Whatever it is, I'm really interested in actual events that support your religion-as-comfort-from-suffering claim.
I think it is empirically false. Religion does not provide comfort. If it did, then it would not cause suffering, which it does by your own admission.
61. Stephen Fry and Christopher Hitchens debate blasphemy
Comment #19350 by Sancus on January 26, 2007 at 11:00 am
Since that part of the discussion was in the context of a question about Dawkins, and since Hitchens made a point to emphasize it, here is the transcript starting in the middle of the 68th minute.
Questioner: Would you be as aggressive as someone like Richard Dawkins, in actually challenging religious people, and... taking issue with their beliefs...
Joan Bakewell: Isn't he?
[laughter]
Stephen Fry: Chris is doing a good job.
Joan Bakewell: I think he's making a fair...
Christopher Hitchens: ... I have great respect for Richard Dawkins as well. I don't think I've been less critical of religion in general, but the religious impulse in people. In other words, our quarrel is not with the priests and the rabbis and the mullahs. All who are willing to kill -- don't forget this, if I make one point tonight and it stays in your minds, it'll be enough:
The Wahabi want to kill the Shia. The Shia really hate the Wahabi. Get used to it. Anyone who says, "don't let us offend Muslim opinion," doesn't know what Muslim opinion is, doesn't know what happened in Afghanistan, doesn't know what's happening in Iran or Iraq now. There is no such thing as a unified Muslim opinion, nor with Christianity... we hope, I look forward to a fight between secular and religious Jews in Israel, I hope, in which blood is spilled in order to remove the messianic settlers. I really look forward to it. All the ingredients are there.
Dawkins, I think, translates himself as an attacker of rabbis, mullahs, "inciters," in other words, what the law, this bloody law would call "incitement." I say the fault is within ourselves. We are gullible, we are stupid, we are partially evolved, we're racist implicitly, we're superstitious, we're afraid of the dark, we're afraid of death, we have... our prefrontal lobes are too small, our adrenaline glands are too big, our thumbs hardly any good at all for opposition. We could do a lot better. The problem is with us, not with the people who live on our gullibility and our stupidity.
That's, if I could just make that... religion makes religious people of the same faith want to murder one another, because, if you ban blasphemy once, the next thing you'll ban is heresy, which means you can't even disagree in the Siekh temple, as was shown in Birmingham. You can't disagree in the mosque. And nobody needs to be told what happens, if you're the wrong kind of christian.
So come on get real about it!
[audience applause]
Next questioner: ... Thank you.
Christopher Hitchens: It's the product of our own evil.
Riley wrote:
Comment #19312 by LookToWindward "I suppose, Riley, that Hitchens is merely of the opinion that war is the only thing that will settle certain of these questions and may, in the very long term, end up being less awful (according to some measure of awfulness that includes death and suffering together) than the alternatives."
It's an unavoidable contradiction to his own stated conviction that religion exists as a way of escaping fear of death, to promote the idea that increasing the suffering and death in a community could decrease the amount of religion in it.
Using religion as a way of escaping fear of death does not mean escaping death, which means that it is probably not a very good way of escaping fear of death. Religious people fear death at the hands of other religious people and, indeed, anyone who is not of their religion. This tendency makes people further fear death at the hands of people within their religion, but of a different opinion. Muslims, for example, may all be of the same faith, but not of the same opinion. Banning blasphemy (denouncing the faith) is for religious people functionally inseparable from banning heresy (denouncing opinion).
Religion has altered people's fears of death in such a way as to make them wish the death of those who do not fear death the same way.
Hitchens sees this as an unreasonable position to be in, and believes the only recourse this dynamic will lead to is violence. I am not as cynical as Hitchens to look forward to this violence, but if it is inevitable, which it certainly seems to be, then I hope that it is swift but potent enough to cause more people to wake up to the fact that religions are not helping them.
Last time I checked my history books, the dynamic between suffering and religous belief was directly proportional to one another, not indirectly proportional. I'm amused that the audience let him preach such nonsense without pointing out to him how full of bs he was.
Maybe that apparent relationship exists because religion causes suffering? My history books don't show that it works the other way around. America started its golden age of freethought right after the Civil War, still the bloodiest war in American history. Existentialism and Marxism flourished around the world after the World Wars. Religious fundamentalism prospers in the peaceful 80s and starts to take over conservatism during the very optimistic 90s. Then after 9/11, Sam Harris becomes the star author of The End of Faith, existent religious conservatism makes more conflict, and then Richard Dawkins' publisher says the market is ready for a book on atheism. The God Delusion remains part of the national discussion indefinitely.
I hear this Marxist garbage about religion being the natural effect of suffering all the time, but curiously I never see the evidence. So, if anyone can show that there may be some actual empirical verification to this claim, I'd very much appreciate it.
Comment #19326 by Sancus on January 26, 2007 at 8:31 am
A woman with autism gives us an extraordinary insight into the world, what thought means, what language means, and, ultimately, what personhood means. The first part of the video is her communication in her own language. The second part is a translation into the language most of us speak. I wonder what Sam Harris makes of this. It seems to me partly pertinent to the notion that scientific empiricism is the only legitimate form of interaction with what we call truth.
The woman said that she is using language to interact with the environment. Although the video is haunting, that sounds like basic scientific empiricism to me.
A reader writes:
Long time reader but this is the first time I've felt compelled to write to you. As a parent with a child with autism, I couldn't watch more than a minute of that video. What that autistic person is doing is not a form of communciation. Communication in essence is a way to relate to others and what I was seeing is basically a serious sensory disorder and an inability to function and communicate in today's society. Autism is a serious illness, which causes many problems for not only the autistic individual but also their families. If you want to focus on autism, then discuss how Applied Behavioral Analysis is not covered by health insurance. Talk about how difficult it is to get a medicaid waiver for autistic individuals. Talk about the need for respite care for caregivers. This is an neurobiological disorder Andrew, not a lifestyle choice.
Indeed. Using language to interact with one's environment is not communication, since communication is understood as a social phenomenon and not a solitary one.
Nonetheless, I do not think it is useful for secularists to say that science cannot be done alone or outside the scope of communication. Perhaps that is the real problem secularism has today.
Comment #19238 by Sancus on January 25, 2007 at 5:30 pm
Sullivan quote:
You ask legitimately: how can I, convinced of this truth, resist imposing it on others? The answer is: humility and doubt. I may believe these things, but I am aware that others may not; and I respect their own existential decision to believe something else. I respect their decision because I respect my own, and realize it is indescribable to those who have not directly experienced it.
What on earth makes him think that his experience is religious, if it's indescribable? How is it possible for him to look at scripture, religious authority, etc. and say, "yeah, that's it," if it cannot be described?
The attempt to force or even rig laws to encourage others to share my faith defeats the point of my faith - which is that it is both freely chosen and definitionally dealing with matters that cannot be subject to common consensus.
Defining something is to describe it.
There is no reason to think that it cannot be subject to common consensus -- in time. Perhaps someday we'll be able to hook electrodes up to Andrew's brain and share his experience. Or with transdimensional technology, or whatever it takes. Who is he to say that's not possible by definition, if by definition it cannot be defined?
Comment #19230 by Sancus on January 25, 2007 at 4:53 pm
It's good to have his criticism, because it helps us make the distinguishing points clearer.
His review is very positive and he's looking to be convinced. He even wrote a book recently, Why Darwin Matters, attacking the politicization of science education. The minute he recognizes that religious people cannot separate faith from politics, he'll come around, I think.
Shermer debated an Intelligent Design theorist a few months ago and he didn't mind releasing the hounds then.
http://www.cato.org/event.php?eventid=3184
65. Randi and 800 Other Amazing Skeptics
Comment #19218 by Sancus on January 25, 2007 at 3:49 pm
Christopher Hitchens debated Stephen Fry last May about blasphemy at the Hay Festivel. The audio is available as a free podcast and it makes for entertaining listening.
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/culturevulture/archives/2006/05/08/listen_to_steph.html
And here's the direct download link:
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/culturevulture/Blasphemy.mp3
Comment #19214 by Sancus on January 25, 2007 at 3:36 pm
I am not convinced by Dawkins's argument that without religion there would be "no suicide bombers, no 9/11, no 7/7, no Crusades, [etc.]" In my opinion, many of these events—and others often attributed solely to religion by atheists—were less religiously motivated than politically driven, or at the very least involved religion in the service of political hegemony.
Some least!
I once caught the tail-end of a debate between Christopher Hitchens and Andrew Sullivan in front of Tim Russert (there was never a time when I wished more for a rewind button). Sullivan finished with his usual schtick on how the problem is that people are not separating religion from politics and Hitchens replied plainly, "I'm sorry, Andrew, but you cannot separate religion from politics." Indeed, the separation of church and state does not imply the separation of religion and politics.
Sullivan is wrong, Hitchens is right, and Shermer is underestimating the problem.
67. Randi and 800 Other Amazing Skeptics
Comment #19209 by Sancus on January 25, 2007 at 3:16 pm
Thank you for those links, Richard. I hadn't seen the second.
Here's a good quote from it for those who might miss it:
The most alarming sentences that I have read in a long time came from the pen of my fellow atheist Sam Harris, author of The End of Faith, at the end of a September Los Angeles Times column upbraiding American liberals for their masochistic attitude toward Islamist totalitarianism. Harris concluded:
The same failure of liberalism is evident in Western Europe, where the dogma of multiculturalism has left a secular Europe very slow to address the looming problem of religious extremism among its immigrants. The people who speak most sensibly about the threat that Islam poses to Europe are actually fascists. To say that this does not bode well for liberalism is an understatement: It does not bode well for the future of civilization [italics mine].
...
When I read Sam Harris's irresponsible remark that only fascists seemed to have the right line, I murmured to myself: "Not while I'm alive, they won't."
Comment #19153 by Sancus on January 25, 2007 at 8:09 am
Here's the article bungoton is referring to.
http://exchristian.net/exchristian/2004/12/bible-teaching-and-religious-practice.php
Also, here is another page of Twain essays on religion including the above.
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/twainwp.htm
69. Randi and 800 Other Amazing Skeptics
Comment #19147 by Sancus on January 25, 2007 at 7:28 am
South Park is garbage and it knows it. Trey and Matt are surprised it ever got anywhere and so am I. Sometimes it is good for a few laughs but I've never liked it. Then, perhaps that's because I don't need its messages. I get shocked enough by real life, thank you.
I'm very disappointed that Penn Jillette has not opened up more criticism about South Park's attack on Dawkins. Maybe I've missed it, though, since I stopped listening to his radio show around New Year's. He just sort of said, "yeah, something really bugged them," and let bygones be what they are or some such.
Whatever, Penn. I don't think the most potent cultural force for skepticism in recent years is that potent if it attacks the other most potent cultural force for skepticism in recent years, and neither should you.
Comment #19142 by Sancus on January 25, 2007 at 6:44 am
the great teapot, I suppose the point is that one man's idea of "showing off" is another man's idea of a living. Boasting is not that simplistic.
I consider it a virtue not to be offended by someone else's superiority and this seems to be missing from a great number of people. Instead of being offended or, worse, prostrating one's self, it is better to consider whether or not they really are superior.
Comment #19132 by Sancus on January 25, 2007 at 5:24 am
It may sound counterintuitive, but it's possible to lose people you care about because of too much humility. When it comes time to choose education and career paths, if you do not stand up to your priests, parents, teachers, or friends and nurture your own talents, you will gradually become very depressed. You will see yourself as pathetic and this will cause you to harm your own relationships. It is a vicious trap to fall into, but I know what it's like. I've already lost people I care about because of humility.
The byline of this article says "atheists are people, too," but we might as well reword it as "talented people are people too." We must not make people ashamed of their gifts.
Comment #19129 by Sancus on January 25, 2007 at 5:14 am
I didn't say anything about losing all humility.
Even then, better to be an arrogant bore than just a bore.
Comment #19126 by Sancus on January 25, 2007 at 4:55 am
I think the word "bright" was already used as a divisive term before atheists tried to use it. This division is more observable in the classroom, where saying that a child was bright was to recognize their superiority. The divisiveness is made painfully clear when students who are recognized as superior are nonetheless neglected. We seem to instead prefer them to learn the same lessons at the same pace as those who are inferior. Bright children are a problem and we punish them for it.
"Gay" never had connotations of superiority or any at all division. This is why "bright" is not working the same way.
Dawkins has been called elitist by some of his critics. He responds by saying he finds nothing wrong with elitism as long as it is non-exclusive. I agree with this sentiment. However, why doesn't Dawkins use the term "elite" to describe himself? Why don't all atheists refer to themselves as "elite?" Even if it factually true, what's wrong with it?
I really don't know, to tell the truth. However, I suspect it has something to do advertising one's superiority to someone who markedly does not have that superiority. It is to remind the other of their disadvantage, and in so doing hurt their ability to overcome that disadvantage. Of course, one must not be ignorant of one's disadvantages to overcome them, but one must not dwell on them either.
People use faith as a means to not dwell on their human weaknesses. This includes their weakness in the faculty of reason, and this is probably why some people get really into it. It appears that some people just don't have the ability to make very many sound arguments. They do have the faculty of reason, yes, but are limited in the scope of its application. The truth is that we are all limited in the scope of its application, just some more than others.
I don't know if we can escape the reality that some people are just not as bright as the rest of us.
In any case, isn't it okay to take pride in one's talents? If we are not able to enjoy our own accomplishments, then we do not have much reason to accomplish anything. We become pathetic. This is the worst thing about religion: it makes talented people ashamed for their talents.
And I'm sorry to burst your bubble, Britons and Democrats, but this is the worst thing about socialism. Your reverance of coercion is as unreasonable as it is for the religious. It stunts the nurturing of talent of makes everybody poorer for it.
I am still overcoming my religious background that overvalued humility. Although I enjoy my reasoning abilities, I still have a ways to go before I fully appreciate them. Then I will be unashamed to call myself bright. :)
74. Guest Host Bill Moyers with philosopher Daniel Dennett
Comment #19001 by Sancus on January 24, 2007 at 8:45 am
Old Coppernose, you seem to be one of those unbelievers who forgets that all children are born unbelievers. Since they already have this open disposition, there is no need to force them to learn about some groups of people with crazy ideas. On the contrary, what is necessary is to protect them from being forced to learn these ideas. The best way to protect them is to nurture their natural unbelieving predisposition and empower them with independence, which the religious take away from them through deception and force.
Dennett thinks he can solve this problem with the state acting as a force majeure, or overwhelming force. It is patently clear that that is an impractical, unreasonable, and remarkably religious position.
It also happens to be immoral.
Comment #18987 by Sancus on January 24, 2007 at 7:21 am
Sam ends his latest response brilliantly.
You seem to have taken particular offense at my imputing self-deception and/or dishonesty to the faithful. I make no apologies for this. One of the greatest problems with religion is that it is built, to a remarkable degree, upon lies. Mommy claims to know that Granny went straight to heaven after she died. But Mommy doesn't actually know this. The truth is that, while Mommy may be rigorously honest on any other subject, in this instance she doesn't want to distinguish between what she really knows (i.e. what she has good reasons to believe) and 1) what she wants to be true, or 2) what will keep her children from grieving too much in Granny's absence. She is lying--either to herself or to her children--but we've all agreed not to talk about it. Rather than teach our children to grieve, we teach them to lie to themselves.
This passage needs to given the loudest voice possible. It's time to stop sitting idly by while parents lie to their children. It weakens them and their ability to face real world problems. Instead, it is time to empower them.
Everyone, we must have the courage to call out dishonest parents among us. It must no longer be acceptable to keep silent around parents who lie to their children. It may invite scorn and it may even end friendships, but it is the right thing to do. Be brave!
76. Activation Of Brain Region Predicts Altruism
Comment #18890 by Sancus on January 23, 2007 at 1:28 pm
Logicel, Hitchens is a godsend for his book on MT. :)
Definitely, Linda. I've been trying to redefine altruism in the forum, but without much success. Many of the things people currently think are altruistic today really are not. People used to think that slavery was altruistic, so I don't see why that should be surprising.
"We believe that the ability to perceive other people's actions as meaningful is critical for altruism," Tankersley said.
Do they mean "meaningful" in the general causative sense or in the positive sense?
77. Guest Host Bill Moyers with philosopher Daniel Dennett
Comment #18838 by Sancus on January 23, 2007 at 6:20 am
Dennett is great. None of us hear need to be persuaded that the world is a better place with him in it. He is human, though, and is capable of abandoning reason for the things he cares about most. This occurs just around the 37th minute.
Dennett: ... We should have a national curriculum on world religions that is compulsory for all school children, from grade school to high school for the public school, for private school, for the home schools...
Moyers: Why?
Dennett: Because, if we taught the young people of a country this, then you could teach them whatever else you wanted, and I wouldn't worry about religions... I think any religion that could flourish under those conditions would be a benign, a valuable wonderful religion. I think, if you look at the toxic religions [becoming emphatic] they are all the religions that survive by the enforced ignorance of their young. And all we have to do, I think...
... Is enforce non-ignorance? Dennett pauses and collects himself here to avoid saying just that. If he uses anything resembling the word "enforce" for his plan, it will make his idea sound just as toxic.
Dennett continues with a lighter tone, starting with "we can tell people..."
Dennett: ... we can tell people, you can home school your kids, you can give them 30 hours a week of religious instruction, but you also got to teach them what the people that are not of your faith believe and you have to teach them about the history of all the faiths in question including your own.
Moyers: That's asking a lot of people who take religion so seriously that they do not want their children, or their own minds, to be competitive with their own religions.
Dennett: [pausing to shake his head] How very un-American of them to think that. I mean this is the land of democracy and an informed choice. What are they afraid of?
Aside from equivocating on the merits of using force in education, Dennett is contradicting himself. Dennett says that a "benign, valuable, and wonderful" religion can flourish in competition and that "toxic" religions survive with the use of force. At the same time, he says that toxic religions survive in the competitive environment of education, and that we can fix this by using the forced intervention of the state.
Apparently competition serves Dennett's purposes when he can use the state to force people to entertain competing religions, but it does not serve his purposes when the state leaves education alone and allows schools to compete with each other. Religious people often use science to support their claims, and dismiss science when it does not support their claims. Dennett does the same thing with freedom of thought.
The fact is that Dennett's plan is not even necessary. Children are naturally curious and we do not need to force them to use their own curiosity. On the contrary, using force dulls their curiosity. Instead of substituting force with force, we should be working on ways to protect children from those who use force against them through education.
Dawkins once said that he does not believe that parents should be prevented from influencing their children. I do not believe this either. We all influence one another. We all exist in and share a common environment. However, parents do not have any more of a right to influence their children as any other people do. Children must be allowed basic human rights.
The state can help support this autonomy, but not by the use of force. Perhaps it could build dormitories for those individuals who choose not to live with their parents, but have no where else to go. For prolonged stays, basic guidance on how to live on one's own can be provided without all the religious baggage of their parents. By allowing children independence, we can help foster mature and healthy relationships with their parents. Some parents would have time to rethink how they raise their children and invite them back home under more healthy circumstances. Instead of building schools as we know them today, the state could build learning centers, safe places with learning materials where children can go to expand their knowledge. Schools today are not safe because they use force against children, and the children naturally respond by rebelling.
It's very simple, very benign human nature to protect one's self from the coercion of others. When you abandon this respect for children, you abandon both reason and science, and only obscure the challenges they face.
78. The Mystery of Consciousness
Comment #18642 by Sancus on January 22, 2007 at 7:27 am
Another startling conclusion from the science of consciousness is that the intuitive feeling we have that there's an executive "I" that sits in a control room of our brain, scanning the screens of the senses and pushing the buttons of the muscles, is an illusion.
Okay, every time I hear this from a scientist or anyone writing about consciousness, I overlook it as an unusual metaphor that I don't understand, and just continue reading. Unfortunately, this statement of Pinker's proliferates most of scientific writing about consciousness. It is meant to sound palpably ridiculous. It is palpably ridiculous. We all appear to agree that it is palpably ridiculous. However, it keeps being mentioned!
Do the rest of you really have this intuitive feeling that Pinker is talking about? Other members of this board know that I have been struggling to understand this. Frankly, I just don't know how you can live with yourselves. This is absurd and I guess the fact that you recognize it as absurd helps you get along. Nonetheless, how can you feel this in the first place? There is clearly more to "you" than the concept of control, isn't there? For example, take your capacity to sense beauty.
Then again, the way Pinker talks about beauty is equally absurd from my perspective.
To make scientific headway in a topic as tangled as consciousness, it helps to clear away some red herrings. Consciousness surely does not depend on language. Babies, many animals and patients robbed of speech by brain damage are not insensate robots; they have reactions like ours that indicate that someone's home. Nor can consciousness be equated with self-awareness. At times we have all lost ourselves in music, exercise or sensual pleasure, but that is different from being knocked out cold.
I have always been confused by the notion of "losing yourself to music." At first glance it sounds tremendously stupid and irresponsible, so I do not take it seriously. If that's a nice metaphor for the rest of you, okay. But do you really mean to say that you lose your sense of self in these experiences? How can you live with yourselves like that? It seems to me that the obvious answer is that you can't. That's why you have to lose yourself.
This is exactly how religious people think. They believe that beauty is something exclusively external to them and that it's encapsulated in the Holy Spirit, the source of inspiration. If there really are so many scientists and atheists out there who cannot connect the sensation of beauty with the sensation of self, I find this extremely disturbing.
Experiencing beauty is and always has been a self-affirming experience for me. When I experience the ecstasy of music, I am moved by it. I may dance or my imagination may be ignited with imagery. Nonetheless, I am still there to enjoy the music. Of course I would still be there, because I am the one experiencing it, and I would not want to miss it!
To say that you cannot sense yourself when you sense good music is conceptually inconsistent. How else could you sense the music, if you weren't there sensing it? Dennett says there are no zombies in the world, but losing one's sense of self to music is plenty zombie-like from my perspective. Incidentally, this is why I think it is morally wrong.
Of course, if your sense of self is limited to the language, then lose this limitation. Do not think that losing this limitation is losing yourself. It's just factually wrong.
79. A Middle Ground for Stem Cells
Comment #18298 by Sancus on January 19, 2007 at 12:34 pm
But the biological fact that a human life begins at conception does not by itself settle the ethical debate. The human embryo is a human organism, but is this being — microscopically small, with no self-awareness...
Who has the ability to say that it does not have the capacity to sense its own existence? True, it likely does not have the kind of self-awareness we do. After all, we are not embryos. However, we are not each other either, and therefore do not have the same kind of self-awareness as each other. Other animals may also have varying kinds of self-awareness, if not very sophisticated kinds.
Single-celled organisms would have a single-celled version of self-awareness, if any. They would also have a single-celled version of choice, if any. We must dispel our preconceptions about self-awareness and choice and realize that they may exist on a much wider scope and diversity than we currently think possible. Then we will be able to move the stem cell debate forward, by studying what it means for stem cells to have choice.
It is not difficult, really. We can start by realizing that choice for embryos is naturally limited to those things that an embryo can do. Multiply and divide, for instance. Once we have established observable choice, then we can ask, does the embryo have the right to its location and shelter? Does it indeed have the right to take residence in the mother's womb without her consent? Can the mother be said to have given her consent when she consented to sex? And not given her consent when she was raped?
So, perhaps we can justify transporting the embryo to another location, say, next to a degenerating muscle in a disabled person. If the cell continues to multiply, then it has exercised choice. If it does not, then it chose not.
80. Dispatches: Undercover Mosque
Comment #18212 by Sancus on January 19, 2007 at 2:40 am
It's fascinating to me that a cleric vehemently equated non-belief with dishonesty.
People must learn to see that Islamists are beyond the God delusion. They don't recognize anything but their delusion. It is totally consuming and anyone who has an introductory level of understanding about Islam knows this. That is the goal of their religious practice. Whether it is expressed through intolerance or peaceful prayer, this is the foundation of all Islamic praxis.
Comment #18204 by Sancus on January 19, 2007 at 2:12 am
32. Comment #18126 by yesspam on January 18, 2007 at 1:04 pm
""Iraqi's are not killing Americans because they believe in a god , they kill Americans because they(USA+their lackey state UK and even Holland -where I live) marched into their country with 3rd Reich-style agression.
People should read more about politics.""
Iraqis are killing other Iraqis (in great numbers)every day, because they differ in their interpretation of Islam, not because there are any political differences between them.
Their differing interpretations of Islam are their political differences.
Comment #18202 by Sancus on January 19, 2007 at 1:51 am
35. Comment #18134 by Friend Giskard on January 18, 2007 at 2:05 pm <--- Needs to be read by like a million atheists.
Linda, it's much more than self-protection. Sullivan has said previously that he "loves the ritual." He has a very high degree of aesthetic appreciation for religion. However, if there is indeed a great deal of self-protection, it can be revealed by the fact that he embraced religion while struggling with the prejudices against his sexual orientation. In other words, he used his strong aesthetic appreciation of Catholicism as a means to justify his hope.
Art greatly inspires some people, after all. I think religion is a case of inspirational art that people are somehow unable to recognize is of human origin. This is probably because they are in some way unaware of their own creativity.
In any case, Sullivan firmly believes that religion is the answer to solving the problem of homosexual prejudice in society. This may have had something to do with the fact that his own father accepted him when he came out and even immediately realized how painful it must have been for him. For Sullivan it's probably easy to think that there is a divine father looking out for all people, gay and straight. Then again, if anyone can make it uneasy for him, it's Sam Harris.
Comment #18113 by Sancus on January 18, 2007 at 11:44 am
Is a reply from Sullivan coming?
84. Interview with Richard Dawkins
Comment #18062 by Sancus on January 18, 2007 at 5:38 am
Sorry for my late reply, everyone. I've been a little busy.
Howay the Toon, how can it be an example what he's talking about, if it's false? I do not understand your post.
Electric Monk, if Dawkins does not actually deny the ability of children to be scientists, then he denies that it is a survival advantage, which is denying their right to use this ability. If I am misunderstanding all of this, I hope that you will forgive me, since this cliff comment is inarguably false and in no way supports his theory -- whatever it may be!
stgben, Richard opens TGD with the wonderful story about his wife saying "I didn't know I could" about addressing the problems of her schooling while she was young. She knew that there was a problem, but she didn't know she could address it a certain way. The meaning here is that if she had known that she could, her brain would have then addressed the problem that way. Do the children you refer to know that they can dispute their parents' statements? Probably not, because parents are allowed to exercise unparalleled social dominance over them. So, they have learned that if a parent says it is true, than it must be true, not because they had a natural predisposition, but because our society uses force to teach them this obedience. For this reason, parents likely start to enforce habits of unquestioning obedience in infancy. Not surprising, as this is the traditional way to raise children. It also happens to be the unscientific way, and the wrong way.
In fact it is very likely the opposite, that children have a natural predisposition not to believe, which leads to the "terrible twos," not to mention passionate curiosity, the drive for exploration, and the entirety of scientific knowledge as we know it. Incredibly, the existence of Dawkins' own profession conflicts with his theory.
Logicel, your gullibility may have been taken advantage of, but was this abuse? No, or at least it doesn't appear so. Dawkins is trying to argue that taking advantage of gullibility is abuse, but it is not. The nature of the abuse regarding religious indoctrination lies elsewhere.
Luthien, I have actually said something similar in other posts, because, yes, Dawkins has actually dismissed the importance of caretakers other than parents in other interviews. If you're interested, I will produce an example, but you can watch if he repeats it again in another interview.
Oh, and glad to help, Jiten. :)
85. Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory
Comment #18059 by Sancus on January 18, 2007 at 5:12 am
I suddenly have a greater appreciation for Richard's optimism regarding the TOE.
Although advancing our learning toward reaching a TOE, and releasing that knowledge to the public, will depend on our embracing the intelligence and imaginations of children, and not using age as an excuse to demean them.
86. Interview with Richard Dawkins
Comment #17782 by Sancus on January 16, 2007 at 10:52 am
I was about to express my gratitude for his not repeating that scientifically tested and demonstrably false comment about children and cliffs. Then the interviewer brought it up! Blast.
Here is the context leading up to it. During the 25th minute of the program, Dawkins reiterates his theory about the origin of religion via child gullibility.
Interviewer: So, what reason, is there religion, and what is the cause, and how to people benefit from having religion? And why...
Dawkins: Well, they don't have to benefit at all. There's no reason why it should be of benefit. It would be sufficient to say that, if children are taught sufficiently young that certain things are the case, then the child mind is not built to be critical, so it's apt to believe it. And if it believes it sufficiently strongly, perhaps because the indoctrination has been sufficiently ruthless, then there's no reason why the child shouldn't pass it on to the next generation.
Let me pause here to state that this is not actually a theory about the origin of religion, but a theory on how religion was passed down through the generations. What caused the first parents to indoctrinate their children with false beliefs?
It would seem that further critique is unnecessary, but since Dawkins keeps presenting this as an answer to the origin question, it deserves more scrutiny.
Dawkins: (continuing) ... so a lot of that goes on, and one can produce a Darwinian reason why that should be so. There are perfectly good Darwinian reasons why the child brain should indeed be set up to be trusting and believing...
If this is not a theory about the origin of religion, and he presents it as such, is it still a scientific theory at all? If so, about what? Neuroscience, evolution, psychology, child development? Dawkins is making assumptions about each of these fields in Darwinian light, so let us examine these implicit assumptions.
First, Dawkins is ignoring the infant mind. Children have minds for a great deal of time before they are able to understand what their parents are talking about, much less accept their beliefs. So, in order to produce his Darwinian explanation, Dawkins must assume that this developmental period does not affect the level of gullibility later. This is not only a haphazard assumption, but almost a century of evidence supports the notion that it is false.
As if to make his barely scientific assumptions about young people into an explicit prejudice about their right to any autonomy at all, he compares them to modern day computers and their totally subordinate relation to programmers.
Dawkins: I use the analogy of a computer virus. It's not possible to make a good computer, that is capable of being programmed, without also being capable of being infected by computer viruses, and similarly I think the child brain is wired up to be programmable by listening to parents and believing in parents
Are there any parents reading this? I know that Richard is a parent but I do not wish to make an ad hominem. After all, just because one is a parent does not mean one has a great deal of knowledge about children. What I mean to ask is, are there any parents buying this?
I baby-sat neighborhood children of varying ages when I was in high school. I did it every day during some seasons. Now, I help look after my nieces and nephews from the day they're born. As an intermediary to children's parents, I have observed in some great detail what authority parents have when they are not around, and it is nothing resembling what Dawkins makes it out to be.
Dawkins must violate Occam's razor to a great extent in order to present his theory. The most important violation is the dismissal of the infant mind. However, he must make uncountably more relevant assumptions after the infant stage.
For example, another interviewer asked before, "why doesn't it work for peas?" Parents tell children that peas are good for them yet many children are skeptical. Dawkins must say that it may not work for peas, but it may work for other things.
It appears there is an extremely large set of things that it may not work for. Going to school, doing homework, swimming lessons, and the like are just the start. Walking into a blazing fire and jumping off cliffs are still others that Dawkins appears to entertain, which can and have been demonstrably tested under rigorous scientific conditions. The cliff is a prime example that has been refuted, and I have brought it up a number of times on this site. One can use one's imagination on still more unusual things and the sky is the limit. Dawkins' violations of Occam's razor may diverge into infinity.
Still, there are more pressing assumptions. He continues,
and that automatically means that it can't sort out the good instructions, wise instructions that are actually good for survival, from the either bad instructions or at best time wasting instructions, which are religious ones.
Dawkins is now swimming against the Darwinian current. For his next assumption, he must propose an extremely debilitating survival weakness. Not being able to sort out instructions that are good for survival and not good for survival, coupled with a Darwinian dependence on such instructions, would likely have ended the human race a long time ago.
Even though we have survived and with much success, this does not weaken the theory for Dawkins. Indeed, in other interviews he has expressed solidarity with a view held by his colleague E. O. Wilson, who worries that the human race may be ending as we speak. Regardless of the future, Dawkins makes an assumption that actually conflicts with Darwinian theory, since it compromises the survival of what has been an extremely successful species.
By now, the interviewer notices complications in Dawkins' position by noticing that it depends exclusively on language and its origins.
Interviewer: Kind of brings in an interesting whole other question about why language evolved...
Why would something be selected for and nurtured if it made us obey instructions that compromise our survival? Does it not make much more Darwinian sense to say that humans would have evolved capabilities to sort out good instructions from the bad? Even if these capabilities are "learned," did we not evolve a capability to learn them? After all, even other mammals like dogs and horses, who have shown a remarkable ability to obey human commands, do not obey such commands when it conflicts with their survival interests. Humans are no different.
This raises the question, "ok, Sancus, why don't children show an ability to sort out good instructions from the bad?"
In order to address this pivotal question, we finally come to the moment that I referred to at the beginning of this post. Dawkins and the interviewer agree to skip the complicated question of why language evolved, before deciding to throw science out the window.
Interviewer:... but that's for another...
Dawkins: That's for another... yes.
Interviewer: But, obviously, it's a lot more efficient, in that, being able to tell children what risks to avoid, then to allow them to go stand on the edge of the cliff.
Dawkins: Yes, it's not only efficient. I mean, if children tested that advice for themselves, they'd... they die.
Dawkins finishes with an anti-scientific statement. He denies the ability of children to be scientists. It is reminiscent of a time when women were denied the right to be scientists. There are many parts of the world where they are still denied the right. Although, as recent as a century ago in the west, people just naturally assumed that women did not have the capacity for science, much like how Dawkins naturally assumes it for children.
"Have you lost your mind, Sancus? Children cannot be scientists!"
To which I answer, how can newborns be anything but scientists? They are always observing and testing new things about their environment, fascinated and engrossed by it all. It's why they are so beautiful and refreshing. We have to keep a constant vigil on their curiosity, it is so powerful. Their curiosity is so great that their impulsive testing may cause them trouble in an unsafe environment.
As their bodies grow, they become physically stronger. By the age of two, they are able to cause real harm to the people around them. Their curiosity becomes a danger to us. Parents have a short term interest in limiting this curiosity, and our culture has named this battle of wills the "terrible twos." I challenge anyone to find a child who cares about religion during this period.
If Dawkins wants to look for a memetic virus in children, the first one he will find is the expression of "no." It takes saints to survive the defiance of such creatures.
Dawkins' next assumption is quite a doozy. He assumes children have a survival advantage not to be scientists! How could he, a scientist, ever think that being a scientist would be a disadvantage? Certainly, being in a dangerous environment is a disadvantage, but not being a scientist in a dangerous environment.
Since newborns are not yet able to speak, their science is focused on experience, observation, and experimentation, as opposed to theory, logical sophistication, and mathematical elegance. So, in order to make the many preceding assumptions, including the assumption that children are unable to test claims (and therefore unable to sort good instructions from bad ones) he must make yet another huge assumption. That is, children have raw disabilities in sense perception that prevent them from making observations with an appreciable degree of safety.
Our example is the cliff. Other animals do not need words to keep themselves from walking of cliffs, but Dawkins has said in previous interviews that children would just "walk off cliffs" without his so-called Darwinian theory for gullibility. He must think they are not able to perceive the cliff and its threat to their survival. This claim is demonstrably false. Psychologists have known that it is false since the 1960s. The visual cliff experiment is even used as an example of the scientific method itself in the introduction of some psychology courses. (A Google search on the words "visual cliff" and "experiment" will provide more information).
The manifold weaknesses of Dawkins' theory on the origin of religion, if it can be presented as such in the first place, cannot be underestimated. Aside from being empirically false in some places and theoretically dubious in others, it is also morally wrong.
Children are denied the right to be scientists. They are denied by parents from testing their claims, so they are forced to take them on faith. Indoctrination is abusive, not because of gullibility, but coercion.
And coercion is wrong because it is the denial of an individual's right to science.
Comment #17624 by Sancus on January 15, 2007 at 7:09 am
Sancus, let me try, in good faith, one last time. Wolpert's point was that the TiS line of "teach the controversy", which would involve throwing both science and ID at children so they could "decide", is simply preposterous. Surely we can agree on that, can't we?
Not for the same reasons. This is very important: it's wrong to corner children and tell them what they can and cannot learn.
Now in trying to make that point on live radio he used some phrasing that could be misinterpreted as saying that school children are incapable of understanding evolution. And on this you have seized as a drowning man to a liferaft. But clearly he doesn't believe that evolution is too difficult for school students to understand, which would mean he would oppose the teaching of biology at all in school!
I don't see how that last statement follows. Most elementary school biology is taught independent of its evolutionary framework.
Wolpert has been a fellow of the Royal Society for over 25 years, and a fellow of the Royal Society of Literature since 1999. In addition to being a distinguished developmental biologist, he is also one of a tiny handful of scientists who have worked to popularise science, through both books and broadcast. He has also shown enormous courage in using his own experience of depression to investigate and raise consciousness about that debilitating condition.
All of that is terrific, but you're presenting this is an ad hominem. None of these things have any direct application to his comments. It is ironic that you would accuse me of ad hominem and then use it yourself in defense.
Some perspective, common sense and generosity of spirit are surely in order.
Indeed. Wolpert and distinguished scientists like him who hold condescending views toward children regarding science education would do well to find perspective and raise their generosity of spirit. If you do not agree with the first part of this post, then that goes for you too.
However, perhaps the problem is common sense, which Einstein described as the collection of prejudices required before age 18. Have you ever wondered how young people learn to accept those prejudices?
Comment #17620 by Sancus on January 15, 2007 at 6:32 am
Kismettena, since I was once in a homeless shelter myself, you get a lot of empathy from me. I've slept next to the disenfranchised, and I remember what it was like to be treated as a subhuman while young.
I wonder, JohnC, have you ever had a sleepless night, because you were kept awake by an entire room of snoring homeless men?
By the way, those who are as perversely fascinated as I am by the disintegration of religious/right-wing rotten bloc that brought Bush to power might be interested in this piece:
http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/004439.html
From an American conservative commenting on a new book by Dinesh D'Souza, who would be familiar to regulars here as having written two separate attacks on Richard (re-posted at this site). The title "If homo lovers are liberal, then mullah lovers are conservative?" gives you some idea of the content.
I'm not seeing how this link is directly relevant to Dawkins, evolution, or atheist conservatives. Is the author of this piece an atheist?
Comment #17616 by Sancus on January 15, 2007 at 5:52 am
Thank goodness for the stop button.
Comment #17563 by Sancus on January 14, 2007 at 6:35 pm
Jack, I would not make either of those claims, if I did not think they were defensible. There was no intention of insinuation or malice, so I guess your lack of reply means that you are not ready to address them. Instead, you have chosen to ignore them -- fulfilling the second claim!
I meant those in a very serious sense. Socialist morality feeds off of religion, whether you decide to examine it or not. Naturally, it follows that this decision not to examine it is one of voluntary ignorance, stemming from this unconscious dependence on religion.
I am quite happy for others to judge my state of deep ignorance about conservative atheism on the basis of what I've posted :-)
It is good to see you acknowledge it, JohnC. After all, that is the first step! ;)
Comment #17561 by Sancus on January 14, 2007 at 6:11 pm
Well, aside from that being a fallacy from lack of imagination, it is not ad hominem to call someone out on his destructive prejudices. More to the point, I did not attack something else about Wolpert in order to discredit his view. Considering I did not even know who he was, that makes an ad hominem all but completely impossible. Maybe if I made fun of his voice or the sound of his name, that would be an ad hominem. Furthermore, I am not using this prejudice of his to discredit his other arguments.
Lastly, sometimes people are neither friend nor foe. Assuming they would be either is a basic and readily abhorrent false dichotomy. President Bush was eager to assume such a dichotomy, mind you.
Comment #17555 by Sancus on January 14, 2007 at 5:31 pm
JohnC, the article I linked to referenced Dawkins. It is entirely appropriate for this site. My previous link was about Darwin, Intelligent Design, and the Skeptics Society. Again, entirely appropriate for this site. The very headline of this page refers to conservative atheism, of which you are evidently deeply unfamiliar.
This lack of familiarity is by choice, moreover. It is a voluntary ignorance not apparently dissimilar from religious faith.
Now, you are quite at liberty to refuse to participate in this highly relevant and completely appropriate discussion. Indeed, liberty is the topic at hand, and it is the point of morality based on reason and evidence that no one is forcing you to participate.
Comment #17553 by Sancus on January 14, 2007 at 5:09 pm
Its up to parents themselves to ensure their children think for themselves - and THAT degree of freedom in childhood requires a tremendous amount of love!
It definitely does require an incredible and noble amount of love, Martha. However, parents can be assisted with the help of progressive schools, like those that follow the Montessori method. Maria Montessori herself stressed that a teacher should observe students like a patient scientist.
Comment #17551 by Sancus on January 14, 2007 at 4:59 pm
JohnC, how about a pause of 20 years? That's how much time I've had to consider the moral inanities of science education.
Yes, it is indeed pompous for a distinguished scientist to categorically prejudge limits onto the ability young people have to understand and appreciate science.
Wolpert is aka a, "pompous ass," until he retracts this frivolous and damaging prejudice.
Comment #17541 by Sancus on January 14, 2007 at 4:06 pm
Lewis Walpert revealed himself as a pompous ass, unfortunately, about 11:30 inwards.
I mean, to suggest that the children could decide whether or not... is bizarre. I would have thought that the level of competence of children in school understanding evolution was very very low. Evolution's a very complex process. It involves genes, it involves development, it involves molecules, and I'm terribly sorry, but it is not something that school children can deal with, at that particular level
Walpert is equivocating the level of knowledge one needs to be persuaded by evolution over ID with the ability to write a doctoral thesis on the subject. Simplicity is at the heart of evolutionary theory, but listening to Walpert, you'd almost think he was supporting the case for ID. Evolution is irreducibly complex for school children.. Thank goodness for educators like Dawkins who are enthusiastic about the theory's simplicity.
Children aren't stupid. They don't need ID folks breathing down their necks, the same way they don't need people like Walpert to patronize them about their ability to understand and appreciate science.
Something else that might be related. How old was Dawkins when his life changed from reading about evolution? Oh, that's right. He was a school child.
Comment #17535 by Sancus on January 14, 2007 at 3:08 pm
From JohnC
But of course this intrusive, regulatory approach to sexuality (it wasn't that long ago that many US states still criminalised oral sex in marriage in their sodomy statutes) is deeply at odds with conservative political values espoused by the very same right-wing Christians. What this shows, I think, is that for the religious right "conservatism" means an aversion to modernity, and has little in common with the traditions of Burke etc.
Even Burke rejected modernity, though. He did not think individuals could be morally responsible through reason because he thought, ""the private stock of reason in each man is small." Burke did not think that reason could replace religion as a guide to morality.
I'm going to have my hands full recommending libertarian literature, now that people are getting interested. :) Here is an article from Cato you all might find interesting called "The Party of Modernity."
http://www.cato.org/research/articles/kelley-0306.html
It's about how both of America's major political parties are rejections of the Enlightenment, one premodern (Republican} and the other postmodern (Democrat). The author finishes talking about Dawkins, so, Josh I think this would also be a good article for the site.
Comment #17532 by Sancus on January 14, 2007 at 2:49 pm
Edit: This comment was made before seeing the above post.
First, in case there is any linguistic confusion, MIND_REBEL is not referring to classical liberalism, but postmodern American liberalism.
Second, the problem with statements like his are that they are snide, exactly like Kismettena's statement quoted by Jack Rawlinson.
Third, JohnC, it aids no rational discourse to refer to someone's political ideas as "whacky," especially if you meant that comment as I interpreted it, referring to any position that strongly disagrees with today's American left.
Finally, socialism relies on a rejection of the Enlightenment just as much as theocratic conservatism does. A mountain range of secular capitalist literature awaits you on the other side of your parasitic religious morality.
Comment #17518 by Sancus on January 14, 2007 at 11:12 am
Jack Rawlinson endorses some snide remarks but not others.
Comment #17511 by Sancus on January 14, 2007 at 9:52 am
Kismettena, although I do not describe myself as conservative, I think using the gay marriage issue to define conservatism plays right into Karl Rove's hands. The whole point of his political strategy is to make the voting decision emotional, and actually deter rational discussion by bringing emotionally charged issues to the forefront. It's vexing to many conservatives, even some religious, who care more about the protection of liberty and free trade. So, if you have trouble finding rationality in conservatism, you would do well to focus on those issues.
Michael Shermer, director of the Skeptics Society, actually takes a conservative position regarding the teaching of Intelligent Design. He is a vocal atheist and opponent of Intelligent Design. Interesting, isn't it? I wonder how that could be. :)
Instead of spoiling it for you by speaking for him, I think it'd be better if you heard him yourself. He spoke at the Cato Institute about his book, Why Darwin Matters: The Case against Intelligent Design.
http://www.cato.org/event.php?eventid=3184
Josh, if you're reading, I haven't been able to find this debate on the site, so I think it would be a great addition to the articles list. The debate is in video form, real audio form, and MP3 download.
Comment #17494 by Sancus on January 14, 2007 at 4:55 am
It is often said, in defense of religion, that we all live parasitically off of its moral legacy, that we can only dismiss religion because we are protected by the work it has already done on our behalf. This claim has been debated ad nauseam since at least the middle of the 19th century. Suffice it to say that, to many of us, Western society has become more compassionate, humane, and respectful of rights as it has become more secular. Just compare the treatment of prisoners in the 14th century to today, an advance due to Enlightenment reformers. A secularist could as easily chide today's religious conservatives for wrongly ignoring the heritage of the Enlightenment.
Would Mac Donald say that socialist atheists are wrongly ignoring the heritage of the Enlightenment as well?
More Pages: Previous | 1 2 3 4 | Next
Upcoming Events:
About this site
Mailing List Signup: Enter your email
Go to The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science
Richard Dawkins Articles | Comments | Tour Journal
Atheist Resources | Local Groups
Debate Points | Latest Responses
Audio Books
The God Delusion
Read by
Richard Dawkins &
Lalla Ward
The Ancestor's Tale
Read by
Richard Dawkins &
Lalla Ward
On the Origin of Species
Read by
Richard Dawkins
Links:
Quotes of Note:
"The habit of religion is oppressive, an easy way out of thought."
Peter Ustinov
"The objections to religion are of two sorts - intellectual and moral. The intellectual objection is that there is no reason to suppose any religion true; the moral objection is that religious precepts date from a time when men were more cruel than they are and therefore tend to perpetuate inhumanities which the moral conscience of the age would otherwise outgrow."
Bertrand Russell
"I do not fear death, in view of the fact that I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it."
Mark Twain
"Pointing to another world will never stop vice among us; shedding light over this world can alone help us."
Walt Whitman
"Nothing can be more contrary to religion and the clergy than reason and common sense."
Voltaire
