51. Only secular schools will overcome sectarianism

Comment #66157 by Prufrock on August 29, 2007 at 4:57 am

I fear any attenpt to secularise the education system will meet with very strong resistance for the time being. Judging by poll results mentioned by a previous poster it seems the idea of abolishing faith schools is doomed for the time being also. However, if we face the reality that people are still infected with the faith virus and that it will take time for the antidote called reason to be found, it may be an idea to consider going the whole hog and turning religious study into an academic discipline. A person I know studied comparative religion at university and it helped her finally accept her non belief, even though she came from a strong catholic background. Maybe it would be an idea to make religious study compulsory and then force schools, especially faith schools, who need to show their utitlity and objectivity, to teach comparative religion to GCSE and A level standard. This kind of solves the problem of ignorance of - I know, slavish following of superstition is the real problem - and prejudice towards other belief systems. The hope may be that if you see the absurdity of other beliefs, you'll see the inherent insanity of your own. Just an idea, and I know, probably a bad one.

52. Feeding the fear gene

Comment #65450 by Prufrock on August 24, 2007 at 8:43 am

Scooternyc and hungarianelephant remarks make very interesting reading. Science requires intelligence, imagination and creativity. It has a scientific method which should be taught to everyone of high school age, but probably isn't. If you said Occam's Razor to someone they would probably reply no I use Gillette. The scientific method which includes, observation, controls, prediction, etc, would mean nothing to those who get their science from the media, which lets face it is only interested in feeding the human need for sensationalism. If you spoke of Karl Popper and refutation, Kuhn and paradigms you would probably start a fight somewhere. Professor Dawkins, to his credit, tries very hard to show the integrity behind science, but education is the key. For many perception is reality when maybe perception and reality parted company a long time ago, it's only now with the efforts of the gang of four and forums like this that people can be shown why science works, how it's done and anyone can and should be involved in it.

53. CNN Request for 'I-Reports' on religion

Comment #65185 by Prufrock on August 23, 2007 at 5:34 am

I replied to the post saying that I believe only in the truth and that faith has consistently gone out of its way to hide that truth. I then went on to say that we had a responsibility to each other to ensure we did not return to the dark days of superstitious, prejudiced, intolerant ignorance which blighted our development. I finished by suggesting it was time we accepted that we know and understand too much to have faith in faith as a way of preparing for tomorrow's world. Yesterday's world may have needed a belief in a supernatural god to make us aware and give us the will to survive in possibly hostile environments but tomorrow's world needs a completely different approach and the way forward has to rational and evidence based. Faith is one ladder we need to kick away, because it just aint true.

54. Scientists should unite against threat from religion

Comment #65142 by Prufrock on August 23, 2007 at 2:22 am

What Bizarro Dawkins has to say matters as much as a condom in a nunnery. He's not going to get much there either, by all accounts and neither will the lunatics who blow up themselves and others in exchange for an eternal orgy with the 72 virgins. I have no idea how these madmen will satisfy their lusts with their imaginary spirits, but that isn't my concern. What is a concern is why it took Sam Harris to point out the inappropriate nature of the offending Nature article. If we are going to investigate religion scientifically then this baloney needs to be avoided.

55. Enemies of Reason

Comment #65138 by Prufrock on August 23, 2007 at 2:07 am

I really enjoyed the second part of the series. I was expecting Richard to give Deepak a real tongue lashing quite simply because Deepak has been trained to know better than spout nonsense for cash. In my opinion Deepak's inappropriate use of scientific jargon to justify the seemingly unjustifiable really compromises any professional, let alone the medical profession. This kind of quackery reduces every professional to the level of the dodgier, unprincipled type market stall trader we try to avoid or street hustler, in my very humble opinion.

56. Rational Atheism

Comment #64863 by Prufrock on August 22, 2007 at 5:49 am

Thank you, Dr Benway. In attacking the monster we must ensure we do not become the monster ourselves. The monsters are dogma, superstition and the downgrading of people who wish to believe evidence, not to remove from people the right to believe. I am for rationality and have no time to religion bash. We already understand the value of evidence based reasoning, it just needs us to ensure we constantly push its positive value and contribution, rather than continually undermine and demean. Leave that kind of pointless behaviour for the God Botherers. We are better than that. We believe in reason not dogma.

57. A Matter of Faith

Comment #64841 by Prufrock on August 22, 2007 at 3:42 am

Julia Sweeney's mother was a little worrying. Her remark about being told there was no proof of God in the second grade, reminded me of Ignatius Loyola's remark about showing him the boy at seven and I'll show you the man, or something like that. As a result of all of that childhood programming she would not even conceive of the possibility of there needing to be proof for a belief in anything. Even more worrying is the fact that as an adult it would not even cross her mind to ask whether her beliefs were in fact tenable. I guess it will take quite a few more years and a lot more work in neuroscience to finally show people that the personal God they talk to is really themselves. I see journalism as part of the entertainment industry. Its job is simply to put things across in as palatable a way as possible to as many of its advertiser's public as possible. Sometimes, I think we get the media we deserve. I am led to believe we are spoiled for choice where newspapers and magazines are concerned here in England; but Americans may not have the same breadth of editorial choices. Maybe that needs fixing. One thing is clear and that is that journalists don't always let the facts get in the way of a good story! You pay your money you make your choice.

58. A Defense of Atheism

Comment #64696 by Prufrock on August 21, 2007 at 11:18 am

Misunderstandings happen. I've been on the atheism thing for 25 years now, ever since I got more interested in science(Computer Science and maths primarily, though some neurobiology for neural networks) and moved out of newpaper journalism - I still do the odd very local article. So yes, I am on board.

59. Interview with Richard Dawkins about 'The Enemies of Reason'

Comment #64663 by Prufrock on August 21, 2007 at 7:52 am

Couldn't agree more Northern Bright! Simply say you believe in your invisible, but psychotic, creator and you become immune to the same sanity checks and balances everyone and everything else is subjected to. I must admit there were some strange ideas being aired and how Professor Dawkins kept a straight face when told he was going to have the missing strands of DNA replaced I don't know. I cried with laughter at the obvious bunkum being spouted. Professor Dawkins was subdued in the programme and only looked as though he was ready to blow when talking to the Doctor who tried to explain some nonsense in terms of Quantum Mechanics. I think he expected better from the doctor. Richard Feynman would have had a field day with this psued who should really have known better given his medical background.

60. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #64619 by Prufrock on August 21, 2007 at 2:58 am

Like Veronique, and indeed most people on this site, I believe only what I have evidence for or what I have directly experienced. I agree that man created God - well the Abrahamic God, anyway. Delusional means believing in spite of the facts suggesting otherwise and I guess as Professor Dawkins has stated a belief in God fits this definition. However, I am a little disturbed at the way in which we have attacked Darwin2 personally. We are trying to state a case for rationality, not behave like a starved pack of hunting hounds devouring a stag. Believe me, he is not the only person in the world with what seems to us like strange and unsupported beliefs. Any belief that is not supported by evidence is indicative of a lazy or malevolent mind for sure, but I am of the opinion that it is beliefs and attitudes of mind that are mistaken, indeed possibly insane, and not people. I am ignorant of many things and am not competent in anything I have not had the opportunity to practice in. I like to think, possibly mistakenly, that I am curious and able enough to learn and do these things, as would any of the 6 billion people we inhabit the earth. But we have to accept we are still in the minority in accepting the realities of the universe, ourselves and our place in that universe, and for whatever reason, people will still hold beliefs like Darwin2's strongly. Eventually, in time and with the right approach, people will see that rational, evidence based and objectivity does work for them as it does for everyone. Darwin2, I am of the opinion you should feel free to post and say what you've got to say, but don't expect us to like it or to respond to it! Veronique, I share your frustrations but telling to fuck off is not good. Better to tell the person you haven't heard so much crap since you got off the toilet this morning and leave him to read and hopefully learn as we all do. Reasoning with the unreasonable is not particularly fruitful.

61. The age of endarkenment

Comment #64505 by Prufrock on August 20, 2007 at 10:05 am

aitchkay, now you're talking. I'm naturally hopeless at everything, to begin with, but pick things up and reach competency quicker than most because I know I have to deliberately try harder in order to master material. I remember having problems when I was younger - a lot younger - making the transition from O level to A level English Lit, Maths and History. The reason? I didn't find out until I went to university and actually learned to think about what I was doing that I was simply taking in stuff but not really processing it, consciously, with the most wonderful thing in the known universe, a human brain. In effect I deliberately learned to be critical and, of course, to be creative on rare and necessary occasions. So much of what we learn is spoon fed to us that we seem to forsake the need to develop the kind of thinking skills necessary to ward off the superstitious drivel many take in, because they have not learned to think critically. Some know better of course and choose not to exercise their critical faculties. Maybe there is hope; we simply need to teach people to think for themselves about stuff. Mmm, but what would those who depend on us to depend on them, like for instance religious and political leaders, do though?

62. Sikh girl will convert for a place at Catholic school

Comment #64473 by Prufrock on August 20, 2007 at 7:22 am

Why does Philip Larkin's "This Be The Verse" keep popping into my head, you know the one that starts "They **** you up,your mum and dad. They may not mean to but they do". Opportunistic Faith hopping does pop a question into my head: How seriously does the average person actually take religion? Who knows, publicising things like this will help reduce faith's status and we can start the serious business of ensuring kids are treated properly and with respect. Professor Dawkins, I do take the point about children as young as four being abused into beliefs they don't understand, it's just you made that point far more eloquently than I ever could in your writings. My niece is currently at a faith based school, because it is the best in the area. I understand how difficult that decision can be to make.

63. Sikh girl will convert for a place at Catholic school

Comment #64452 by Prufrock on August 20, 2007 at 5:36 am

The concern for me is the belief that a certain kind of school provides a better standard of education than another. If the Catholic school is superior, and I do not know what criterion is used to decide that this type of school does indeed instruct more effectively, then why are the methods of instruction so different in state schools? I can bet that the parents concerned are not making their decision to convert to Catholicism on anything other than the need to give their child the best possible advantage they can. I contend any parent would want this for their child. A solution may or may not be to ban faith schools, but I would rather ensure the standard of education at all schools are of the same high level. Abuse is not just about indoctrinating people with false ideas, but about creating the divisions which lead to better services being given to those of a preferred faith. I too am appalled at the notion of a child being led to believe that his or her faith somehow entitles them to 'superior' products and services. Maybe faith schools should be banned, but I would rather see faith schools standards replicated if they do indeed lead to better general education for children. Faith schools should be banned if they create assumptions about the level of education relevant to the faith and not to the individual child's needs.

64. Artificial Life Likely in 3 to 10 Years

Comment #64420 by Prufrock on August 20, 2007 at 3:22 am

Someone's got to help me. I'm turning into a bitter, intolerant, peeved atheist and not a long suffering, live and let live atheist. The more I read the intelligent, well educated, informed and interesting entries on this website, the more banal, absurd and ludicrous seems the claim that some supernatural deity plays us like puppets and acts like some moral CCTV camera. It is so insulting! We humans are intelligent and design stuff like cars, aeroplanes, computers, rockets and now understand enough to start on the impossibly long journey to create artificial life and someone wants me to believe it's not really us that's doing it; it's his imaginary friend who's behind it all. Zasurein: I'm not sure what you mean by 'Life was obviously designed, ..."

65. The age of endarkenment

Comment #64415 by Prufrock on August 20, 2007 at 3:05 am

Now that is a little worrying as I have always respected the apparent rationality and secularity of countries like Holland and Scandinavia. Yeah, there is hope that 'woo-woo' practices can be chased out of existence. Maybe Christianity now only needs to focus on its own woo-hoos.

66. The age of endarkenment

Comment #64409 by Prufrock on August 20, 2007 at 2:52 am

The issue for me here is the downgrading of properly scientific education, the softening of intellectual rigour in popular disciplines like psychology, sociology and media studies, and the proliferation of the nonsense that it is better to be popular than correct. We live in the Big Brother society - both Orwellian and Channel Four reality programme - and our leaders need to be in touch with the perceptions of society rather than ensure the highest standards are maintained. Let's face it science is perceived as difficult and challenging because you can't assert beliefs without evidence and your friends can't support you when you're talking arrant nonsense. It seems to me that science is paying for its success and a couple of things have happened. I remember laughing in frightened incredulity when I was told of the Christian Scientist movement. This obvious oxymoron shows the need that the irrational and superstitious has to certify itself with something observable and credible, as a way of justifying its dubious existence. Another thing would be the inappropriate use of scientific mechanisms, which work perfectly when applied to the appropriate phenomena, but make no sense when applied to measure more subjective and ambiguous data. It is absurd to use the measuring tools used by physicists, biologist, chemists and mathematicians, to measure the effectiveness of educational programmes and then draw strange and unverifiable conclusions from this process. The same can be said about justifying psuedo scientific new age claims citing completely inappropriate psuedo scientific claptrap. It does not fit the description of a science therefore should not be using scientific methods of measurement. What is interesting is how so many people taken in by all of this nonsense? And what are trading standards and law enforcement agencies doing to ensure misrepresentation is not encouraged?

67. Artificial Life Likely in 3 to 10 Years

Comment #64405 by Prufrock on August 20, 2007 at 2:27 am

For me science has two objectives: First, it must provide accurate, testable models which not only explain physical phenomena, but must also have some kind of precictive aspect to it, i.e. I muat be able to make some prediction about behaviour of physical phenomena as a result of the models created. Quantum Mechanics and Einsteinian physics satisfy this criterion completely. Secondly, I should be able to exploit this model in order to create new products. I think, Bizarro, if you held these ideas in mind you would be able to see more clearly why ID leads us nowhere and scientific thought around evolution leads us to more tangible evidence of life's structures. The above article informs us of developments which not only adds a little more evidence to the likelihood that reason and science is taking us towards what is true, but it also throws doubt, if any was needed, that we don't need superintelligent designers to create life and that the building blocks we have uncovered suffices. It makes sense for us, therefore, to continue exploring these avenues for truth and drives another nail into the coffin of ID as a way of explaining the universe and our place in it. Just as importantly, new tools can be contemplated to solve a set of problems which have dogged mankind. Naturally, if you don't think fighting disease using models that actually do something constructive and approximate more closely to reality is good, then communication with you will be difficult. There's no point me being further dragged into a discussion on evolution v ID; as far as I'm concerned the jury is in and the verdict has been given. The overwhelming evidence shows that ID, Creationism, God is absolutely not guilty ... of anything; not a thing, except creating a market for products trying to resolve the confusions created by believing without evidence.

68. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #64278 by Prufrock on August 19, 2007 at 9:47 am

Just watched this video and didn't understand a word McGrath said. I'm not sure I understand why someone as rational and sane as Richard Dawkins should have to be subected to this nonsense. I'm surprised he kept a straight face at so many of McGrath's inconsistencies. So much of what McGrath's says does not stand up to even basic scrutiny, observational or logical. Anyone watching McGrath's rather inept explanations could not possibly believe in any supernatural deity, especially one as capricious as the one McGrath was describing. The only time he made any sense at all is when he kind of agreed with a point Dawkin made and then proceeded to confuse himself again by trying to explain God's role in stuff. It is so obvious to me that God explains nothing because God probably doesn't exist. McGrath is very articulate, it's a pity he has very little to say to us about God. Richard Dawkins was his usual elegant self and show how compelling telling the truth, or at least trying to tell the truth, can be. You can't help but be impressed. I think Richard speaks for most of us when he expresses his anger at those of us privileged to be born at all should waste it on stuff which aims to keep us all chained to infantile beliefs, ignorant superstitions, whilst enjoying the fruits of scientifically based labours, instead of taking the opportunities to question and hence enjoy the wonders of nature and ourselves. I've never met Richard Dawkins, but he makes a lot of sense to me and appears to be a thoroughly good chap. What's so wrong with only believing evidence anyway?

69. A Defense of Atheism

Comment #64030 by Prufrock on August 17, 2007 at 11:17 am

Point taken Steven. I was in fact supporting Lime's remarks and also taking an opportunity to show how something as irrelevant as sexuality is allowed to colour our appreciation of the achievements and stature of brilliant men. Apologies to Lime if he took any offence.

70. The Out Campaign: Interview with Josh Timonen

Comment #64020 by Prufrock on August 17, 2007 at 10:09 am

Nice one Josh. I was going to say the website is a godsend, but I might be pushing things a bit. I've never been shy about my doubts about SuperG and his miracle workers, but it is great to be able to contact people with a similar outlook to myself. And it seems that it is all down to you and Richard "Consciousness-Raiser" Dawkins.

71. The Bible's literary sins

Comment #64005 by Prufrock on August 17, 2007 at 8:52 am

Whilst doing A level English Literature - the English equivalent to a university entrance exam - I realised that many of the classics I was studying, while not inspired by the bible, were influenced in some way by it. For completeness sake I would read the relevant parts of the "good" book to complete the reference concerning the piece of work. I enjoy the classics and most other human driven works and so can't dis the bible as it has inspired many wonderful works as indeed has many myths and legends. The bible is all nonsense though.

72. A Defense of Atheism

Comment #64003 by Prufrock on August 17, 2007 at 8:37 am

Lime: As far as I know Churchill was very aware of the importance of the work Turing and his colleagues were doing. Turing turned to Churchill for assistance when the future of the project for cracking the enigma code was in doubt. Churchill had no hesitation in taking Turing at his word when he told the PM the project needed to be fully supported. I wonder if those religious nutcases who perversely ignore the reality behind Dr Benway's last post would use a computer if they understood Turing's contribution to its development and to what extent von Neuman esteemed Turing's work. Shows that sometimes the British and Americans can stand shoulder to shoulder on worthwhile projects without the religion stick to beat everyone over the head with. Some people, really!

73. A Defense of Atheism

Comment #63974 by Prufrock on August 17, 2007 at 5:45 am

A very balanced and sane analysis. The consciousness-raising goal of Prof Dawkins is very often overlooked, also by myself. I like the subtle reminder that even as atheists we must remember we live in a world of many faiths in which we do not believe, but others do. Questioning faith is about questioning God and in doing so encouraging people to maybe see that maybe there is nothing to recommend this idea as a basis for anything constructive. Consciousness raising has assisted women to at least a pathway to equality; has made people aware of the ludicrous nature of racism and made the persecution of homosexuals - as someone who studied computer science, it is hard to reconcile what happened to Alan Turing with rationality, in spite of my own heterosexuality - appear what it is: cruel, stupid and pointless. Maybe Prof Dawkins can change the general perception of rationality and evidence based reasoning, thus elevating it to the state it deserves to be as a more reasonable platform or starting point for making truthful and honest decisions. This review and the reasonableness of its tone takes a step towards achieving this.

74. Good luck, Dawkins!

Comment #63815 by Prufrock on August 16, 2007 at 1:54 am

I liked Sue Blackmore's article in spite of its rather depressing tone. It's a message I can empathise with. I am an unashamed fan, not just of Richard Dawkins, but of clear and evidence based thinking, as most people I have read on this site are as well. Richard Dawkins as a result of his courage, intelligence and high profile has done a magnificent job of not just clarifying the inherent complexity behind scientific concepts, but has played a major role in leading the retort against all too pervasive superstitious thinking, both in ourselves as individuals and in the institutions which we allow to drive our lives. I watched enemies of reason and was left a little flat as many of the things he quite rightly pointed out had provided much mirth and creative debate when I was in sixth form a while ago - ok I'm old, 30+ years ago. I have had my run ins - and still find myself vocally debunking their myths and magic - with the spiritual and mystical. Nothing but nothing seems to change their minds and nothing but nothing changes the minds of the people who believe their palpable, distasteful and possibly criminal nonsense about New Age fantasy or Old Age delusions. At best I feel I am simply point scoring and at worst feel I am simply wasting good drinking, ehm, I mean socialising, time arguing against people who are not going to listen to reason, no matter what I, the evidence or Richard Dawkins says. I really hope Sir Richard, his contributions to truth and life should be knighted, can somehow change the illusion that mankind cannot very much bear reality and show that it is imperative that we not only bear it but celebrate it. As I am sure someone else will have pointed out, Evidence based reasoning should completely dominate the meme pool, the rest should simply be entertainment and imagination as it is. I fear the opposite will be made true and it is Richard's work which may be seen as interesting entertainment, while the poor deluded believing sheep get fleeced. I fear Edward de Bono may be right when he stated that logic and reason cannot change beliefs and perceptions. I really hope not!

75. Atheists and believers have got religion wrong

Comment #63611 by Prufrock on August 15, 2007 at 4:42 am

I'm sorry to be so slow, but I'm not really sure I understand what Mark Steel is getting at. Is he saying that religious belief is inextricably bound in with the circumstances of our lives? If this is so then what does that have to do with the truth value of belief? Is he saying that religion is some kind of coping mechanism for the disenfranchised and economically, politically, socially dominated, while at the same time, form the basis of a brave new world for the economically, politically and socially dominant? If this is so does a belief in a supernatural deity somehow provide the constructive energies needed to resolve the many difficult, but pragmatic, problems these people face in asserting dominance and dealing with the effects of that dominance? Why not call stuff what they are rather than invoke an impossible and imaginary mischief maker to make life easier or justify psychotic behaviour? Why not simply take responsibility for what you think? Please excuse me if I don't get his humour, but just because something is apparently reasonable, does not mean it actually says anything of the sort. The issue is truth. The method is rationality and the unpleasant to be repelled is superstition, irrespective of circumstance. A believe in the juju under the sea, to use an example from Prof Dawkins, does not mean that reality is going to change, when perhaps rationality will lead to the much needed changes in circumstance and fortune. We all have to obey the laws of physics whether we believe in them or not and wearing religion as a kind of badge to show your social status does not strike me as having any meaning or practical value. I have yet to come across this brand of atheism; and I think it is useful to remember that it is ideas which have not been evidenced, experienced or verified which are under attack and not the people who hold them. There is never a rational basis for an irrational belief, just perhaps an excuse or justification. Sorry for not getting it.

76. God Hates the World

Comment #60471 by Prufrock on August 2, 2007 at 2:50 am

I thought my powers of concentration were iron, but this piece of insanity was so unbelievable it shortcutted me, and right in the middle of a chess game too. What is frightening is their belief is so strong it will not be denied. The problem for me is not the integrity of these people, but their refusal to deal with their own individual intentions and the assumptions on which their beliefs are based. I guess they are in fact being logically consistent with those beliefs, it's just that they are not prepared to accept that the basic axioms on which they are predicated and then justified not evidenced and therefore very difficult to accept by we that deal with the 'reality' of evidence, fact and human perception. Nonetheless, there is no excuse for this expression of hatred, and, exacerbates my distrust and doubt in anything based on anything not evidenced or not part of the inner landscape of an individual. The more people say God the more I say not. I'm not yet the antithesis of Carl Jung and his, in my opinion, completely deluded assertion that he knows there is a God, but I am getting there. Yet, there is something inside me that says simply wait for evidence either for or against before arrogantly asserting anything. That's just me being reasonable. In reality, I'm 99.999 recurring percent sure God is a myth, but that isn't 100 percent, yet. I'm still waiting for those people who believe to take responsibility for those beliefs and take on the burden of proof. My patience is simply running out.