51. Lessons in hate found at leading mosques

Comment #83692 by shaunfletcher on October 31, 2007 at 12:49 am

Inayat Bunglawala, the MCB assistant secretary-general, said: "Bookshops sell a variety of publications and we live in an open, democratic society where it is not illegal to sell books which contain antiWestern views."

No but its IS illegal to sell books which advocate murder. Definitely illegal, which leads to the question of why police found these books and took, presumably, no action?

52. AAI 07

Comment #83532 by shaunfletcher on October 30, 2007 at 10:29 am

'Social Darwinism' (a misnomer but in this case an sppropriate one) is a failed concept in any form.. Only someone lost in rhetoric actually supports ideas like those scooter seems to be arguing for. WAKE UP. Communism lost, but it seems that some havent yet adjusted their thinking away from the days when hinting at anything communal felt (in one country anyway) like betrayal.

It might be time for (tongue in cheek) 'Social Dawkinsism'.. based on the thinking that develops from the selfish gene, we can quite easily see that a sensible balance of social networks and private freedoms almost certainly yields, in practice, the best results for the population.

Maybe if unconvinced you should run a huge computerised game theory experiement to see what yields the most successful stable populations.

53. You can't be moral without God!

Comment #81745 by shaunfletcher on October 25, 2007 at 5:55 am

We are often told that the western/Judeo-Christian (and in a modified form Islamic) model of morality is based on the founding principles of that great tri-part religion, enunciated in the Ten Commandments that sit at its heart. We hear often of these 'rules for life' being posted and placed in locations from law court to school walls. In the recent hot tempered debates on Atheism, Evolution, The place of religion in society and such, an almost constant argument from the deist side is that our morality comes from god and, sometimes by implication or sometimes by explicit statement, that the commandments give us the core of this morality. That those of us who reject theism are fooling ourselves and that our morality comes still from this foundation stone of the progressive and compassionate world. Those who want them on the walls of law courts tell us that even if we aren't religious, our laws are really based on these rules, so it's only logical they should be there!

But what are they? What is this great moral code we all live by? I have conducted for some years an ongoing straw poll of people to see how many people know them, with predictably low resulting scores. Active Christians might get six or seven, most others four or five. I invite the reader to have a stab at this themselves, to list out without any reference all ten of them. Perhaps you can, but I freely acknowledge I could only remember eight properly when I started to write this article. Most people seem to carry the innate expectation that they are mostly moral guidance, that they provide and cover most of the really basic wrongs that are universally acknowledged. Stick to these we assume, and we wont go far wrong. Even those disputing their influence or source often buy into this, by treating them as just logical moral rules, as what any society will come up with which embraces the morals inherent in decent people and in a functional society.

But this might be one of the greatest conjuring acts in history... a masterful piece of deception and sleight of mind. The commandments say little about really important moral issues, and a great deal that has nothing to do with morality at all, except in the most distorted sense imaginable. I would like to step through these ten great stone chiselled laws of life, and let us see what they have to offer us for guidance, what kind of list of useful commandments we can construct. For convenience I will use a core of the protestant commandments, but please note that these differ in detail for Judaism and other major Christian sects. The gist of the whole is consistent across all of these faiths however.

The first commandment:
Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Here we have a rule that's only purpose is to establish and protect the religion who imposed the rule. Clearly this is of no use in providing moral guidance, merely a self serving stricture. Hardly a good start to our list of moral commandments.

The second commandment:
Thou shalt not make for thyself an idol.
Well I suppose this might not be an awful idea, worshipping mere things is not a very good thing, but wait... isn't this a little too specific to be of much use to us? Lets not be too quick to interpret this as a modern idea about not becoming materialistic, as many are wont to do, it is in reality simply a prohibition on what were, at the time of writing, alternative religious practices. A restatement of rule one in fact. Oh dear.

The third commandment:
Thou shalt not make wrongful use of the name of thy God.
Why ever not? And what if that isn't my God at all? This one seems to be concerned primarily with protecting and reinforcing the sanctity or seriousness of the religion itself. A familiar tone is appearing, and this one must go the way of the former two.

The fourth commandment:
Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy.
Well it's nice to have a day off work for family time and such is it not? That seems to be the most popular modern reading of this rule, but something being nice, and traditional to boot, hardly makes it an overarching rule for life. Hardly any religious groups respect this one anyway, let alone the rest of us. Again it's about reserving things for the religion, making it special and making sure people don't forget about it. This isn't going to make a final list.

The fifth commandment:
Honour thy Mother and Father.
Well its nice to be respectful to your parents is it not? It is, but that is not what this commandment is really about at all, rather it is a reminder that authority on earth is god-given, and is to be respected and obeyed. It's possible in a moment to think of half a dozen reasons and occasions to neither respect nor obey both ones parents and authority figures, so this one, while of some use, is no underpinning rule of decent living. At least we are getting into morality as a subject, which gives us hope that we will soon get to the good stuff.

The sixth commandment:
Thou shalt not murder.
Well there isn't really much to say about this other than to accept it whole-heartedly. Of course every religious sect and every society has gone on to construct variously sensible or self serving lists of killings that do or do not constitute murder, but the base sentiment is inarguable. We have a First Commandment at last! It's slightly worrying that in the original it doesn't appear till the sixth of ten but let us continue.

The seventh commandment:
Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Now I think I am going to be generous about this one. We would hardly want a list of one commandment after all, that would be making a mockery of the whole thing. In many formal interpretations this is a prohibition on any lustful behaviour or thinking of any kind, except for the procreative necessity between people married in the eyes of God. This interpretation is not going to be in our list, for reasons countless and, I imagine, obvious. The complete denial of desire and of the human sexual urge is the very opposite of helpful. In the narrowest interpretation possible we can read this as referring only to unfaithful sexual relations by a person in a voluntary permanent relationship, and then only when deceit and breach of promise is involved. This view I think can be used, as there are few ways to see such behaviour as a good thing. I let this through with reservations, but I was harsh on the Mother and Father so I think some license here can be allowed.

The eighth commandment:
Thou shalt not steal.
In the standard modern interpretation this is a solid entrant in our list, covering a multitude of, as it were, sins. A prohibition on taking things unlawfully seems inarguable, the only debate to be had might be on the meaning and scope of the word 'unlawfully', but I think we can safely leave that aside and accept this as our third commandment.

The ninth commandment:
Thou shalt not bear false witness.
There seems little problem with inclusion of this as our fourth commandment, as it not only forbids untruthfulness but even refines this with its reference to bearing witness, effectively giving us a rule against causing harm through untruthfulness. We are on something of a run here and almost at the finishing post.

The tenth commandment:
Thou shalt not covet.
Oh dear. We are back in the old familiar territory of both mistaken meaning and of a blurring of the distinction between what's nice and comfortable and what is really necessary and important. On the second point, and with a modern liberal mindset, this rule tells us not to be jealous, not to wish things were ours. Not be be materialistic in a sense. That's nice, but no more than nice. But again that isn't what this rule is about at all. We let it slide into our life at our peril, because its underlying and deeply pernicious message is one of submission. It is telling us to be content with our given place in the world, to accept that the rich man is rich because god made him so; the powerful are so because that is the place given to them in the world. So back to the fields and keep quiet. Seeking to better oneself is a sin. It is not, and this is not a rule for anyone's life.

The eleven... oh wait. That is it. That is the moral framework given to us by the underlying basis of the dominant cultures of the world. All of it, worthy of posting as a list to remind us of what really matters in the world. The big ones.

1. Thou shalt not murder.
2. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
3. Thou shalt not steal.
4. Thou shalt not bear false witness.

All of these moral codes (and many others) can be seen to have simple benefits genetically. Even ignoring the vast bulk of work done since, The Selfish Gene itself effectively provides structures whereby all of these could directly arise from genetic evolution. No god is needed here, sorry people.

54. Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams criticizes popular atheist writers

Comment #78561 by shaunfletcher on October 13, 2007 at 3:46 pm

No Dr Williams, that sounds like exactly what they are talking about.

55. Patience, fairness and the human condition

Comment #78483 by shaunfletcher on October 13, 2007 at 7:15 am

Im a little concerned that the conclusion far ourweighs the experiment. One game, which could simply have been a bit beyond the chimps comprehension, is hardly proof that 'chimps are simply rational maximisers'.

Im sure there is a body of other scenarios exploring this from different angles prior to coming to such bold conclusions, but the article doesnt make it seem so.

56. In honour of Dan Dennett

Comment #78464 by shaunfletcher on October 13, 2007 at 2:09 am

The author

"why he has been a tenured professor at Oxford University"

He is not teaching there. One of the Microsoft founders pays his professorship for the public understanding of science (not evolutionary biology). He is NOT an actual professor. Although he surely could have achieved that.

A little research on your part (again you expect everyone to do this for you) would show you how long he was previously teaching at New College (a fellow for 25 years no less), and that the Simonyi professorship (an extraordinary honour to be the inaugral holder of an oxford chair by the way, rather than something to be ashamed of, and further Mr Simonyi merely funded it, the university gives it its status) is a promotion from that position.

The author
"A point we are all painfully familiar with because every religious apologist on here uses it."

You are talking to a concinced atheist who is actively engaged in spreading the naturalist worldview in varios freethinking and humanist organizations. Don't I fit into your ridiculous black/white worldview? I'm so sorry.

On the contrary, I was merely showing you how you were coming across to people here. Im glad it isnt true.

The author

Apparently I also reached what I definitely did NOT want to reach: Some users showed a remarkable black/white, ingroup/outgroup thinking, otherwise only known to me from faitheads. I think there IS (and Dawkins thinks so too) a certain danger of people just repeating everything Dawkins says and defending him like he was a prophet, no matter what.

All in all what I'm trying to say is: Beware of treating anyone like an omnicient, infallible being. This is an actual danger. Atheists are not infallible either.

Well, perhaps someone here meets this idea you have of a worshipper of Prof. Dawkins etc. Perhaps not. I surely dont, though I do admire his work very much, as I have spent my life in discussion and argument with everyone from priests to professors and flatly consider myself to be 'in' no group. Is that okay with you?

57. In honour of Dan Dennett

Comment #78211 by shaunfletcher on October 12, 2007 at 7:07 am

82. Comment #77940 by The author on October 11, 2007 at 7:28 am
Your reaction is exactly what I was afraid from happening: Dawkins turns into a prophet for some people, his atheism into a kind of religion that is to be defended in the same irrational way as real religion.

And now we come to it. This is what *I* feared you were after, and so it came about. You make some ludicrously over the top criticisms, clearly designed to egg on posters into angry replies, then use the replies you provoked to justify your real point. A point we are all painfully familiar with because every religious apologist on here uses it.

You are one more who sounds like all the rest, even to what appears to the cynical observer to be a thin masking of your position. Your argument is old and tired.

Ill tell you what.. here is your chance to rebuild a shred of credibility. Stop talking about this 'friend' of yours (whether he exists or not is neither here nor there) and say what evidence or justification you personally have for thinking that Professor Dawkins is either on the fringe of scientific thought on the issues of evolution, or that he has no background of serious academia. As an assistance I recommend you to start by asking why he has been a tenured professor at Oxford University for so many years if he has nothng to justify this?

You raised this issue and the onus is on you to back up your claims, not on others to do your research for you. You cannot come here and say "I heard Dawkins is a nutjob know nothing" and then demand others prove you are wrong. You have to show your working or admit you have none.

Shaun

58. In honour of Dan Dennett

Comment #77510 by shaunfletcher on October 9, 2007 at 1:17 pm

"or Dawkins is really defending an "ultradarwinist" position that hardly any evolutionary biologist shares."

I must admit I am unable to find any supporting evidence for this idea. I did try. Dawkins is pretty much mainstream, albeit like anyone else in a complex fields falling into one camp or another on contentious issues.

The 'ultradarwinist' name you keep flinging around seems like something you hope will stick and will sound bad?

59. In honour of Dan Dennett

Comment #77371 by shaunfletcher on October 9, 2007 at 6:34 am

oh hold on there..

all evolution happens in slow and gradual steps. You wouldnt find Gould saying otherwise! Thats what evolution IS

The argument has only ever been about HOW slow and gradual, and whether that rate is broadly steady or very irregular.

60. In honour of Dan Dennett

Comment #77120 by shaunfletcher on October 8, 2007 at 1:48 pm

Comment #77054 by The author
As for offensive language, Gould wasn't any worse than his foes. It should tell us something that there are hardly any ultradarwinists among the evolutionary biologists except Dawkins and Dennett. Evolution does not always work in slow, gradual degrees, and as the alternative is a natural explanation as well (sometimes punctuated equilibrium and other mechanisms play a role) I really don't see the great problem. Gould may very well had been influenced by his religious and political views, but the insistance on "pure" natural selection as an explanation for practically everything also doesn't seem to be objective.

I can only suggest you actually READ what Professor Dawkins has to say about his supposed obsession with 'steady rate' evolution, or about this fictitious 'ultra darwinism' or even the claimed 'natural selection only ever'.

Because you will find he doesnt support any of those things. As an example, my memory suggests that in a later edition of the selfish gene he goes as far as to apologise for his dismissal in the original of neutral drift theories for instance (I invite correction if needed)

One of the biggest criticisms to be levelled at Gould is that his precious punctuated equilibrium controversy, on which he based (in part) his rise to fame, was in many ways a tilt at a windmill of his own construction. The disagreement between Gould and the mainstream was, always, one of degree, not of real substance. His tacit and even explicit pushing of terms which implied punctutated equilibrium was an alternative to natural selection rather than a suggested discussion of its precise mechanism and effect was, to be bluntly mean, cheap publicity seeking.

After all, how many speaking appointments and invitations does one get from writing about variations in the detail of the existing theory? Better by far to act like you discovered a completely new paradigm.

61. In honour of Dan Dennett

Comment #76763 by shaunfletcher on October 7, 2007 at 6:47 am

Having been extremely ill, a complete shock, and having my life saved by (and only by) modenr medical techniques and practices, I find his comments so touchingly familiar.

I have thanked, in person where possible and inside where not, every doctor who learnt, studied and worked, every nurse, every technician, drug chemist, researcher, and my sheer luck at being born at the time where all the arts of science and civilisation have allowed this to be.

Without CAT scans, advanced heart drugs and other pharmaceuticals, clinical practices advances, surgical techniques etc I would be dead at 39. Thank you world.

The amazing thing to me is how few people I saw being treated seemed to have thanks for anyone or anything, and how many healthcare workers and doctors were shocked to be thanked with real sincerity.

People take it all for granted and thank their silly god for nothing.

62. Polygamist Leader Convicted in Utah

Comment #73740 by shaunfletcher on September 26, 2007 at 3:46 am

Like incest, the 'problem' is rarely actually to do with the thing itself (does anyone genuinely care if an adult brother and sister sleep together? or if one woman/man and two women/men want a tripartite marriage?)

The problem is that so very much of the time that isnt the story at all. The story is one of power, abuse, children being dominated and abused, brainwashing from an early age, etc etc.

63. Row Brews Over DUP Call for Schools to Teach Creationism

Comment #72648 by shaunfletcher on September 22, 2007 at 4:31 am

What creationists don't understand (or those that do go to huge lengths to hide it) is that science is about finding something out through observation or theory, studying it, checking exhaustively for any evidence that it is not true, getting others to do the same, and then and only then concluding it is true, and then a rolling process of studying it more to see if any new evidence comes along that proves it is not true.

This order of events is so alien to their mindset that they literally cannot conceive that that might be what scientists are doing. They really believe that scientists spend 20 years in the lab or field looking for evidence that supports their preexisting position, and discarding evidence that does not.

The reason they think that is because that is what they would do.

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

Comment #72554 by shaunfletcher on September 21, 2007 at 3:46 pm

irate_atheist , and if you give a man a fire he will be warm for a day, but set him on fire he will be warm for the rest of his life..

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

Comment #72526 by shaunfletcher on September 21, 2007 at 12:52 pm

On Paul, I would like to bring up from my own background the fact that the inclusion (not to say massive reliance on) his writings in christian thinking was one of the big things that started to make me think very seriously about the whole thing as a youngling. I could not for the life of me understand why it seemed like more of the scriptural quotes I was presented with seemed to come from this fellow than from the 'main man' as it were. I wanted to know who he was, and was shocked when I found out how little underpinning there was to any claims of him being more than an opportunistic charlatan.

I went on to read, I believe, every word purported to be written by him. I found it seemingly to be a combination of a random quote generator, an elderly newpaper letter writer (I used to refer to him as 'disgusted of Rome'), and a snake oil salesman.

Even now it seems like when asked to back anything up most christians reach for Paul. A reliable source of just about any opinion you might want.

Shaun

66. Interview with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #72514 by shaunfletcher on September 21, 2007 at 11:32 am

Summer Seale, you are falling into a huge trap that has been dug so many times.

Let me put it this way for you. For every worthwhile and genuine use of a historical parallel to justify a contemporary action, there are a hundred unjustified and dishonest uses of such a parallel. EVERYONE who wants to invade another country calls on the spirit of churchill, or the demons of hitler or pol pot.

But to accept your view with only the justification you give is to accept that invasion, war, enforcement of view is under all circumstances the right and in fact only decent way to behave. You just made a case for every country in the world invading and enforcing its views on every other country it disagrees with.

Of course there could be many valid justifications for an invasion, for war, for enforcement by force. But you havent presented any at all, only cheap rhetoric.

67. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #72486 by shaunfletcher on September 21, 2007 at 8:59 am

Id like to (albeit facetiously) say that the reason christians should take Professor Dawkins and ilk seriously is for the same reason a house owner should take seriously the person methodically removing the supporting walls from their comfortable dwelling.

If they don't they are in for a shock when the roof lands on them.

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

Comment #72269 by shaunfletcher on September 20, 2007 at 3:35 pm

Revcort, you need (I do mean need) to read the website "god hates amputees" because it clinically (if offensively) destroys the anecdotal nonsense about tumours and suchlike.

To sum it up given that you surely will not read it, prayer never cures anything that could not have been cured without that prayer.. it is always something that has a demonstrable record of remission, or something where the conventional treatment the person is recieving can very well have the effect demonstrated.

This remarkable coincidence only becomes embarrassingly obvious if you conduct an experiment for yourself, in which you list injuries and medical conditions which can occur, and then those purported (without recourse to outright lies such as 'her eyes grew back' in old books) to be healed by prayer. Then take your medical condition list and mark those which could not possibly be healed by medicine or by fortuitous remission. then make a list of those which are marked that way that have been 'healed by prayer'.

There will be no items on the list. Not one. Every single faith healing incident if of something that doesnt need miraculous intervention.

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

Comment #72255 by shaunfletcher on September 20, 2007 at 3:17 pm

revcort on September 20, 2007 at 3:09 pm

For that matter, moving a mountain seems unnecessary, but the point of those verses seems clear to me. Anything is possible with God.

But you must remember that the purpose of our faith is not to put on some side show at a circus or carnival.

But you have to admit, it looks awfully suspicious when there is constant talk that "faith moves mountains", "anything is possible with god", "the power of prayer".. but not just NOW obviously, or perhaps we dont have ENOUGH faith, or perhaps god has plans we cant understand. Excuses upon excuses. Which would be fine, but there are never ever any examples of god saying yes, of doing anything that isnt perfectly explicable without his intervention. Never. Ever. Not one time.

This leads one to the same conclusion you would have if anyone constantly promised they could do something and never delivered but blustered and dissembled. That they cannot do it, that it was all a lie.

70. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #72229 by shaunfletcher on September 20, 2007 at 2:50 pm

Well indeed. I personally have met ONE self declared christian (out of many hundreds), and no muslims (out of many), who do not believe god intervenes directly in the world. The ones who accept there are no miracles say things like "Well he is withholding them, it isnt the 'age of miracles' at the moment".

Your ordinary person in the pews is very very clear what kind of god they believe in.

71. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #72219 by shaunfletcher on September 20, 2007 at 2:40 pm

So now they retreat further, to 'well that might be what we believed till RECENTLY'..

Newsflash. It IS what the vast bulk of the worlds religious people believe. They believe, unequivocally, in a god who exists in the universe, intervenes in it, controls it. a sky father is a very very accurate description of the god of the vast majority of religious people. By majority I mean 99.99 percent or thereabouts.

And anyway, the god of theologians is just as non existent, just as logically stupid, its only difference is that it is designed to be incomprehensible to anyone other than a theologian (or someone willing to spend the time and mental effort to actually understand their wafflings long enough to see through them) and so lacking in substance that it dissapears as soon as you get close to it.. and therefore to be impervious to logic.

Its not working however. We saw what you did there guys.

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

Comment #72094 by shaunfletcher on September 20, 2007 at 10:12 am

Comment #72062 by revcort

#2 Yet, more and more, I'm reading reports of scientists who have found research that leads them to be unable to agree with this theory.

No you are not, or if you are you are reading dishonest reports. You may be finding such claims in the 'fake-science' talk put out by the ID proponent community, but it simply does not exist as a significant trend among actual scientists.

What usually occurs is that a scientist is either

1: Not in any way doubting evolution, but his discussions of the details of evolution are distorted to create the impression that he is (the most obvious and distasteful example being Stephen J. Gould, a committed investigator of evolution which he had no doubts about at all, who some religious people are trying to claim as one of theirs, seeing as he is dead and cant respond). It also happens to many living scientists who make some aside comment that is twisted and amplified.

2: A scientist, or engineer temporarily awarded the title of scientist by those using his/her words to add gravitas, who is commenting on evolution from a non scientific standpoint. For instance (the most famous instance perhaps) a physicist who says 'evolution makes no sense, no way people formed by chance its like a 747 forming in a junkyard in a whirlwind. This is not a 'scientist who has found research that leads him to be unable to agree with this theory.', its just someone bar room philosophising.

3. Someone who enters/focuses science purely as a deliberate way to support religious views. This is where the Dicsovery Institute folks stand, people are literally sponsored or sent to study, sometimes under wholly false pretenses about their intentions, in order to get the title of 'scientist' to lend more support to their preexisting views.

There are a vanishingly tiny number of actual scientists who are led by the evidence they find to conclude that evolution is not the reality.

Shaun (apologising for the hideous abuse the innocent comma has received in this post)

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

Comment #71034 by shaunfletcher on September 17, 2007 at 3:28 pm

There is NO way revcort is for real. He knows too many purty words to be as dumb as he is portraying. He posts long convoluted screeds about god but also posts the most childish version of the argument from design possible. Nuh uh.

74. Censoring Sir David

Comment #69733 by shaunfletcher on September 12, 2007 at 12:41 pm

While I personally am disgusted, I think the issue of legal action or serious objections by the BBC would rest on the nature of changes. If the documentary is edited deceptively to give an apparently different opinion than that actually expressed, that would be serious. If they merely dont show parts they dont like.. there isnt anything much to do about it.

75. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #69696 by shaunfletcher on September 12, 2007 at 8:41 am

Flea:

No error at all. Where YOU make the error is in not realising that RD et all are only responding following the success of the religious books - especially the Bible. That does not invalidate their response - any more than my responding to their response is automatically invalidated.

Well I suppose one could try to suggest that.. but responding to a pervasive cultural and historical phenomenom is one thing. You appear not to understand that someone who wrote a book (as countless thousands have) opposing atheistic viewpoints and/or arguing in favour of a god would not be described by anyone as a 'flea'. It is the act of using anothers success directly to elevate and promote ones own work that creates the label.

'front up'. I wrote the responses to TGD with no intention of publication. I was then asked about turning them into book form. There was no advance, no advertising and no publicity. And yet somehow it has managed to sell out twice and is currently being reprinted. What is most gratifying is that there are a significant number of atheists/agnostics who are apparently reading it. Indeed I met with one last night who said that he was actually persuaded by some of them and would like to have faith. Interesting....

I did make a point to suggest you as someone who, quite possibly, is merely seeing the god delusion as a stimulant for a sincere response. However, its indisputable that your publisher relies on the notoriety of Professor Dawkins and his current book to sell yours, and would almost certainly not have approached you to sell this if TGD had not been such a commercial success, and if he name "Dawkins" didnt secure a certain number of sales.

As for your potential "convert".. To 'want' to have faith implies some concerning personal issues.. faith being belief and not something to be sought or otherwise according to personal desire. I assume you set them straight a little?

I do want to further take issue with your titling of the book (assuming this is your domain?) as normal experience would lead one to assume a book called "The Dawkins letters" would contain a record/extracts of a correspondence between another person and the aforementioned Professor, rather than a series of tracts merely addressed towards his work.

How nice to have reached such certainty. Such wisdom. Such knowledge. If only the rest of the human race could catch up and be as humble as you!

I think you might be either confused or are just being silly here. My own contribution to public discourse on the subject of gods and demons is, sadly, almost non existent. The elephant is never me.

76. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #69510 by shaunfletcher on September 11, 2007 at 2:25 pm

Reverend Flea,

Where you make an error, in suggesting that writing and promoting a book like "The God Delusion" is the same as later writing and promoting a book such as "The Dawkins Delusion" is in failing to realise that the authors of the responding books have, for the most part, written their books only because of (and following) the success of the former.

There may be numerous motivations for this, but were TGD a small print run book only read by a few academics then the other books would not have been written, and the writers would not have been able to persuade publishers to front up for their printing and distribution.

They are fleas of a kind because they seek success for their books based, 100%, on the success of the original book (as evidenced by the referencing of it in their titles/covers). They are the fleas of proverb because they demand to be seen as automatically equal partners in debate just because they have declared themselves to be so. "Look how high we have reached!" shouts the flea as it stands on the outstretched trunk of the elephant, who is quite unaware of its existence.

Of course they cover a spectrum from the honest opportunism of those (perhaps such as yourself) who see the success of Professor Dawkins' book as stimulating a genuine response, through the hopeful ones who see it as providing an opportunity for a wider audience for their views than would otherwise be possible, to the simply parasitic writers who put these things out on commission to make money and get exposure.

77. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #68951 by shaunfletcher on September 9, 2007 at 8:34 am

Goose:
How do you translate this?
'kai eis eme pisteuete.'
Believe also in me.
Trust also in me.
Have faith also in me.

The words believe trust faith may have similar meanings, but they are not the same, they all can translate pisteuete. You have to make a choice, and have a mindset that can live with the fact that your choice could be wrong.

Your error is in imagining one must make a choice, or even that one honestly can. Even an honest translator of fiction will ensure that the notes attached to their translation indication such uncertainty. For instance I recently read a translation of what should be every christian's most sought after read, the epic of Gilgamesh. The translator not only ensured he wrote a foreword explaining his methods and the degree of 'artistic' intepretation placed on the work, but also extensive notes at the end of the book explaining these things in greater detail where needed. This made his translation useful because I knew what I was reading.

Only a deeply dishonest person would not only make a choice but demand that that choice be recognised as having any status and/or used as a basis for any kind of significant decision on anything.

Religion does this. It must or it has not existence. The entire structure of the christian churches rests on such 'choices', and yet they are entirely false and hollow. Even if there was a god then this structure is therefore altogether false, a great house of cards based on nothing but a thousand individual choices.

So you might say 'Strip it all away then and you will find god at the core' but it doesnt work. Strip away everything with no solid basis and you are left with a few tribal myths, and a huge amount of embarrassment.

Many many 'holy' men have gone down this route, a few came to the end and saw what was there and dealt with it (these became atheists or agnostics), some twisted it around in their minds enough to persuade themselves that there COULD still be something there (these are theists and deists) and many ran screaming back to the comforting trances of ritual and, often enough, the peace of a safe cloistered monastic existence or quite vicarage where they never had to face up to what they from that point knew to be the case. (these are called monks and church of england vicars).

78. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #68802 by shaunfletcher on September 8, 2007 at 5:06 pm

I must say, the Andrew Wilson book crosses the line from leeching to outright passing off, as its design is clearly intended to be mistaken for the book it is a parasite of , with the likely result (and intended result, to b e frank) that some people will purchase it in error, believing that they are purchasing the real thing.

Surely the publisher has a case there?

79. Christopher Hitchens and Bill Donohue on Mother Teresa

Comment #68477 by shaunfletcher on September 7, 2007 at 8:32 am

No, in a non-academic/reference book there is no requirement for someone to adopt an academic/reference style and provide citations and notes for statements made, nor any justification in implying that this makes the books statements untrustworthy.

Naturally a book which does not do that will not be treated as an authoritative academic book, but then it can be assumed that it is not intended to be.

Books from academics frequently do provide such citations even if the book itself is not, as such, an academic work (The God Delusion is I suppose a good example of this). I suspect that to be mainly because the authors would simply never think of doing otherwise.

80. Review of Darwin's Angel: An Angelic Response to the God Delusion

Comment #68119 by shaunfletcher on September 6, 2007 at 7:26 am

I have frankly never understood why people will pay to read and own a copy of what is essentially a book review.

Padded out, bound and pretentiously titled it may be, but a book review it still is.

81. Enemies of Reason

Comment #65010 by shaunfletcher on August 22, 2007 at 4:05 pm

I would like to compliment Richard on his, to me, astonishing ability to be excruciatingly polite to all these people. Especially towards the simpletons and fools he is dealing with 75% of the time.

It seems the only ones he cannot in the end stand for are the doctors and scientists who abuse their training. I find that extremely understandable, as listening to the homeopath try to justify (to himself mostly it seemed) that snake oil made me angry in the extreme. The man knows it doesnt work, he knows it's just sugar water for the plebs, and yet he keeps taking the cash and smiling and hoping it either works through wishing or at least does no harm.

Contemptible.

82. Fossils in Kenya Challenge Linear Evolution

Comment #62414 by shaunfletcher on August 9, 2007 at 4:37 pm

It needs to be remembered whenever reading any scientific announcements about this particular (and most publicity heavy) field of evolutionary study that its an interweaving mess of "pet theories" and conflicting timelines, and a long history of enjoying making headline grabbing pronouncements.

Im quite sure whoever Doctors Leakey and Spoor currently have as theory rivals (I lose track) are currently telling everyone they can find what rubbish this interpretation is.

I also find the following quote from Dr. Lieberman, "The small skull has got to be a female, and my guess is that all the previous erectus we have found turned out to be male.", to be a little speculative sounding and along with the suggestions in the article that this all implies large sexual dimorphism to be a case of castles on air almost as its based on one fossil!

Shaun