51. We happy hooligans

Comment #185906 by SteveN on May 29, 2008 at 3:34 am

Brainsys (comment 24).

PZ accuses the theologians of 'perpetuating lies', which they surely do irrespective of whether they believe them or not. I see no problem with that.

52. The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing, ed. Richard Dawkins

Comment #181780 by SteveN on May 18, 2008 at 8:43 am

To ADParker: Actually, it was rgpratt who wrote, in answer to my question, what you quoted in post #39.

I must admit that I'm rather grateful, in a totally selfish sort of way, that Richard has been coerced to first write a book for adults rather than for children.

53. The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing, ed. Richard Dawkins

Comment #181161 by SteveN on May 16, 2008 at 1:43 pm

rgpratt, thanks for the information and the link (#20): that is really kewl. Sounds like it's going to be lots of science specifically directed at debunking the creos. Excellent!

54. The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing, ed. Richard Dawkins

Comment #180976 by SteveN on May 16, 2008 at 8:22 am

Tezcatlipoca asked:

Would those be wooden baseball bats made from trees SteveN?

When I can tear myself away from doing evil experminents in my dungeon, I mean laboratory, I actually spend my time woodturning, i.e. the art of turning large trees into small useless items. Wooden baseball bats are therefore a distinct possibility!

55. The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing, ed. Richard Dawkins

Comment #180971 by SteveN on May 16, 2008 at 8:13 am

j.mills wrote

...in having mostly biology in the first half and much more emphasis on hard sciences in the second

Now wait just one doggoned minute there JM! Are you implying that we biologists are a bunch of softies or that biology is a cushy number compared with physics? I'll be sending round the boys with the baseball bats if Richard doesn't get you first ;-)

56. The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing, ed. Richard Dawkins

Comment #180967 by SteveN on May 16, 2008 at 8:05 am

Jiten said "But I can't wait for Dawkins's own next book."


I agree. As much as I have been so thoroughly pleased with events since Richard released "The God Delusion", it's his popular science writing that I enjoy the most. Does he have such a book in progress, does anyone know?

57. The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing, ed. Richard Dawkins

Comment #180950 by SteveN on May 16, 2008 at 7:41 am

I'm about half-way through this book at the moment and am enjoying it thoroughly. Richard's introductions are short and to the point, and the selected passages are also relatively short (usually one or two pages). I'm steadily making a list of authors whose books I must now read in full.

58. Richard Dawkins discusses Einstein's new letters

Comment #179955 by SteveN on May 14, 2008 at 3:10 am

From the quotations provided by Mind Rebel, I get the impression that Einstein indeed wasn't an atheist in the commonly held (but wrong) definition of 'I believe there is no God' but was an atheist in the correct 'I don't believe that there is God' sense, a position sometimes described (wrongly, in my opinion) as agnosticism.

59. Richard Dawkins discusses Einstein's new letters

Comment #179912 by SteveN on May 14, 2008 at 1:40 am

Mind_Rebel

Your quotes don't actually say anything to indicate that Einstein wasn't an atheist. It sounds like he's criticising fanatical or 'professional' atheists for being too dogmatic or intolerant. Many atheists today do the same.

60. God seekers go public

Comment #179442 by SteveN on May 13, 2008 at 8:50 am

I had a quick look through their list of selected publications. The first thing that I notice is that none of the papers (judging by the titles, at least) have anything to do with ID. The second is that they have listed papers by scientists that were produced when working elsewhere. For example, there are seven papers listed by G. Gonzalez, but if you check his bio, he is presently a prof at Ohio State University.

Oh, and one of the few people listed as actually employed at the institute is the infamous Richard von Sternberg who was responsible for the shameful peer-reviewed ID paper scandal and who is featured in 'Expelled'

What a bunch of tossers. All bluff with no content.

61. 'My daughter deserved to die for falling in love'

Comment #178775 by SteveN on May 12, 2008 at 3:02 am

I'm not sure if this has been commented on before (I didn't spot it with a quick scan of the posts), but although I can believe that (but not understand how) a man's mind can be so twisted by the sickness that is religion that he is actually proud of murdering his own child, and I can believe that other such sickos at the police station would congratulate him, I fail to understand why he is not being prosecuted anyway. I am assuming that it is illegal in Iraq to commit murder, but is 'honour killing' a legal exception? Is there no legal system in place in Iraq to make sure that self-confessed, proud murderers like this are arrested and tried?

62. My Response to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #177493 by SteveN on May 9, 2008 at 7:24 am

When Catholicism is involved in a debate, you should highlight the current Pope's 'Stalin like control freakery'.

Just because the current Pope looks like Emperor Palpatine (from Star Wars) doesn't imply that he's an evil overlord who causes untold suffering and who desires to control the entire human race, does it?

Oh bugger.

63. My Response to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #177489 by SteveN on May 9, 2008 at 7:16 am

It does strike me that many of those who are criticising Richard for the Hitler comparison are ignoring the whole point of the letter above. Richard was only making reference to the oratorial style used by Boteach, which is valid, I think. If I say someone has a laugh like a foghorn, I'm not implying that they look like, or have the brains of a foghorn. Nobody feels accused of being a cigar-smoking, gin-swilling, overweight member of the upper class if their style of speech-making is likened to that of Churchill's. If, as has been pointed out earlier, you sport a square mustache and a particular hair style, being accused of looking like Hitler would not imply that you are a bigot and a murderer and the comparison would not be shameful and childish - it would be justified. I think some people are being a little overly sensitive about using the 'H' word here. As an Englishman who has lived the last twenty years in Germany, I have a certain feel for this ;-)

64. My Response to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #177475 by SteveN on May 9, 2008 at 6:46 am

Although I happen to agree with Richard on this one, I must say that I find it very refreshing that so many of us here are more than willing (and able) to openly criticise him if we think he slips up. So much for the sycophantic bunch of sheep many of the visiting faithful accuse us of being. I wouldn't be surprised if Richard were to concede sometime in the future that using the Hitler reference in the first place was probably not a good idea, strategically.

65. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #176737 by SteveN on May 7, 2008 at 11:25 pm

txpiper:

Whether or not a mutation is beneficial or not depends on the circumstances. For example, the mutation causing sickle-cell anaemia would normally be deleterious, but heterozygosity for the mutation is highly beneficial in areas plaqued by malaria. As a result, the mutation (actually, it's more than one) has been highly selected for in such areas and has spread throughout a considerable proportion of the current population. This is evolution in action.

Another example is the production of escape mutations in HIV during antiretroviral therapy or in the face of a controlling immune response. Viruses with such mutations are usually less able to replicate than their predecessors in the absence of the drug or immune response, but in their presence they have a huge advantage and basically completely replace the susceptible population. What then often happens is that the resistant virus population throws up a further mutation that compensates for the deleterious effects of the first, resistance-inducing, mutation, rendering this double-mutation as 'fit' as the initial virus but still maintaining resistance. This, again, is evolution in action.

Finally, you might want to consider the profound effect that artificial selection of variation, including many random mutations, has had on domestic breeds over a really very short time (think wolf to chihuahua). Non-random, cumulative, selection of random mutation, given enough time, can clearly have an enormous effect. This is not something that can be disputed.

66. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #176387 by SteveN on May 7, 2008 at 8:16 am

Seeker of Truth [sic] wrote:

304 billion - 75% adults - 40% YEC'ers come to 91 billion. My 80 plus billion was off the top of my head and damn close I might add. Now fuck off with your stupid ass shit.

Uh, Dude. that would be 304 million. You're out by three orders of magnitude. But hey, for people who are mistaken about the age of the Earth by almost six orders of magnitude, that's pretty good, I guess.

Edit: Hmmm, looks like a load of you beat me to it

67. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #175366 by SteveN on May 5, 2008 at 10:11 am

Excellent article by Sam, as usual. It did strike me that many of the arguments used and points raised by Sam have already been used by Pat Condell in his excellent rants. Of course, Sam is a lot more restrained and eloquent in his style - but Pat is much, much funnier!

68. Was the new finger a 'natural' miracle?

Comment #175248 by SteveN on May 5, 2008 at 2:18 am

It occurs to me that IF the 'pixie dust' research were to progress to the stage that the regrowth of severed limbs became possible, the website http://www.whywontgodhealamputees.com/ would have to change its name. After all, if believers can attribute recovery from cancer (after months of intensive chemotherapy and hospital care) to the will of god, I'm sure they can do the same with pixie dust.

69. Research Volunteers Needed

Comment #175244 by SteveN on May 5, 2008 at 1:58 am

I have just finished all four surveys and, really, to the vast majority I had to answer "Strongly disagree " or "Strongly agree". There was only some degree of ambiguity with personal questions. I assume that this is a deliberate set-up to get some weak responses in the fMRI.

One question made me pause however: "There is too much innocent suffering for there to be an all-powerful God." On the face of it, I would select "Strongly agree", but of course, there may be an all-powerful but malevolent god who enjoys the suffering of innocents. I suspect the authors of the survey meant ""There is too much innocent suffering for there to be an all-powerful, benevolent God."

70. Pat Condell: Anthology DVD available now!

Comment #174681 by SteveN on May 3, 2008 at 8:15 am

I, too, am a great fan of Pat. I think we need the full repertoire in the fight against irrationality and while I think Shermer too soft and Hitchens sometimes a bit too abrasive, someone like Pat who isn't afraid to be politically incorrect while being funny is like a breath of fresh air. Ridicule can be a potent weapon, IMHO.

I was, however, a bit concerned by Pat's comment in his latest rant "The curse of faith" that went something like: "There has to be a life-force in the universe, otherwise there wouldn't be any life". I hope he's not implying that there must be a non-material, animating force (be it a soul or a Star Wars 'Force') that is needed to explain life. If so, he needs to read a few of Richard's books.

71. Was the new finger a 'natural' miracle?

Comment #174618 by SteveN on May 3, 2008 at 1:47 am

lievemebe wrote in comment 54:

I lost the tip of my finger in a wood planer, the tip was sucked off with the saw dust.

Heh. I did exactly the same thing. Sometimes I amaze myself with my stupidity. I had a signficant chunk of flesh missing and I am quite surprised how well it's regenerated - just a faint scar there now to distinguish the injured finger from the others.

72. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168405 by SteveN on April 25, 2008 at 5:52 am

...even can SPECULATE that MIGHT be evidence of POTENTIAL transition...SPECULATIONS to support their FAITH in their RELIGION of evolution. ...open to SPECULATION, then they could INVENT scenarios...mere 100 FOSSILS... FAITH...BLIND FAITH.

What is it with fundies and caps? Is it because they are used to writing scripts for their sermons and use caps to indicate the bits that should be shouted?

By the way, Remnant, it should be obvious to even you that the vast majority of embryos carrying harmfull mutations don't even get born (hence, no fossils). Even those that do make it to term, if the mutation is signifantly detrimental the carrier is unlikely to have any offspring (this is natural selection, remember?). Individuals with obvious detrimental mutations will therefore only make up a very small fraction of the general population and are therefore highly unlikely to appear in the fossil record.

Edit: Another point, of course, is the fact that the vast majority of detrimental mutations do not in any way effect the bones and would therefore not be recognised in most fossils

73. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168391 by SteveN on April 25, 2008 at 5:35 am

Epeeist wrote in #4042:

Now, you claim a global flood. ... What I am trying to illustrate is that unless you can come up with a single explanation, or at worst a small number of explanations then your conjecture is pitifully weak.

But Epeeist, surely 'Goddidit' is a far simpler explanation than those complicated sciency equations. See, the bible trumps your fancy 'book-learning' every time ;-)

74. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #167320 by SteveN on April 23, 2008 at 10:31 pm

TruthID wrote:

According to evolutionary theory, eukaryotic cells represent the beginning of the chain of more complex creatures. The simpler binary fission found in prokaryotic cells results in an exact replica of the original cell's DNA. Although a prokaryotic cell's DNA can mutate by some exterior means or by transcription, evolution needs some mechanism to bring about a substantial structural DNA change from one species to the next. Where did the input of information come from to cause these huge changes? What organized and diversified the the components of that first prokaryotic bacterium so that it changed into a eukaryotic cell, which has a nucleus and a sexual reproduction system?

Amazing lack of understanding of basic biology. Sad, really.

75. Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher

Comment #159313 by SteveN on April 11, 2008 at 11:54 pm

Thank you Philip1978 for posting that link to Sam Harris' review of Collins' book. I haven't heard or read much from Sam recently, and had missed that review when it first appeared. His razor-sharp wit combined with his eloquence is always refreshing. I particularly liked:

In [The Language of God], he attempts to demonstrate that there is "a consistent and profoundly satisfying harmony" between 21st-century science and evangelical Christianity. To say that he fails at his task does not quite get at the inadequacy of his efforts. He fails the way a surgeon would fail if he attempted to operate using only his toes. His failure is predictable, spectacular and vile."

and

"It is at this point that thoughts of suicide might occur to any reader who has placed undue trust in the intellectual integrity of his fellow human beings."


Go Sam!

76. Ancient serpent shows its leg

Comment #159309 by SteveN on April 11, 2008 at 11:34 pm

So, what will the creos say about this, I wonder? Lizard amputee or deformed snake?

Oh! Oh! I know! It's the snake from the Garden of Eden. The one that God condemned to henceforth crawl on its belly in the dirt. Before that it walked on its hind legs. Once again science confirms the truth of the Bible. Hallelujah!

77. Anti-Quran Film Fitna Pulled From Web Due to 'Threats'

Comment #153121 by SteveN on April 1, 2008 at 4:59 am

Hear, hear Russell Blackford (Post 314). This whole "Wilders is a racist pig, so his film should be ignored/demonised" argument reminded me of the "Hitchens supports the Iraq war, so his book should be ignored/demonised" approach taken by many, including some here. With the possible exception of the blanket 'Stop muslim immigration' message towards the end, I found little to factually condemn in the film, despite it being a clear agenda-pushing, one sided piece of propaganda (which is also true of Michael Moore's films, by the way, regardless of how much I enjoy them). Scientific theories, books, films and works of art or music should be judged on content, not on the personality of the creator*.

Cheers,

SteveN
*and I don't mean 'The Creator'

78. Anti-Quran Film Fitna Pulled From Web Due to 'Threats'

Comment #152485 by SteveN on March 31, 2008 at 6:19 am

AllanW wrote:

'And that is yet another reason for complete, non-negotiable freedom of speech.'. I agree. You'll be as worried as I am about this then;

http://www.iheu.org/node/3123

Good grief! Assuming that the International Humanist and Ethical Union can be relied upon in their interpretation, what they report really, really sucks. Why isn't this major news? We're talking about nullifying the Universal Declaration of Human Rights here.

79. Anti-Quran Film Fitna Pulled From Web Due to 'Threats'

Comment #152434 by SteveN on March 31, 2008 at 2:39 am

Fanusi Khiyal said (#63):

And there you have it. Whenever someone speaks out against Islam, you can count on the useful idiots howling 'racism'.

Um, with "I have to agree with ateu luso on this one" I was referring to his statement "...I have to concede he has struck a chord. Our liberalism, our freedoms, our willingness to bend over backwards to accommodate the cancer of multiculturalism, are all being exploited by religious bigots in order to slowly but very surely introduce their middle-age values into our society." If you taken the trouble to read the rest of my post that would have been obvious.

80. Anti-Quran Film Fitna Pulled From Web Due to 'Threats'

Comment #152411 by SteveN on March 31, 2008 at 1:39 am

I have to agree with ateu luso (#59) on this one. Although I abhor in general the type of politics pushed by the likes of Wilders and although the film is clearly showing only one side of the story, he is correct in believing that Islam is a clear and present danger to our way of life in Europe. Of course, the extreme fanaticism displayed in the film represents only a very small minority of muslims living in Europe and of course most would prefer to live a peaceful life with their non-muslim neighbours, but the deafening silence of the 'moderates' gives tacit approval to the extremists. Like Richard's attempts to raise the conciousness of the general population concerning their unwillingness to criticise religious beliefs, I think we need people like Pat Condell and even the likes of Wilders who have the guts to be politically incorrect in order to awake people from their passive acceptance of Islam.

81. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #151261 by SteveN on March 28, 2008 at 10:45 am

I am SOOO not getting involved again in this discussion about moderates, but I have to point something out to Steve Zara:

Steve said in post #273:

It seems to me these are the kind of mental knots one gets tied up in when one tries to protect moderate religious belief.

Seems like a waste of time to me.

Aargh!! Steve's caught the McGrath meme!

82. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #151003 by SteveN on March 28, 2008 at 1:53 am

Richard Morgan wrote:

Next time I suffer from insomnia, I'll clean out the "it seems to me" from A.McGrath's presentation, which will probably reduce it by about a third!

If you take out all instances of "...and this is a very important question", you can probably save another third.

This reminds me of an event in one of Asimov's Foundation novels in which a highly complex but admired document (I think it was a treaty or something similar) was subjected to a mathematical or logical process to remove the waffle and contradictions from the important parts. The remaining content was precisely zero.

83. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #150991 by SteveN on March 28, 2008 at 12:13 am

Greyman wrote in post #207:

Uhm, SteveN, the question actually was "is belief in God a dangerous delusion?". It was a debate about the utility of religion, not about its truth. Although this point didn't seem answer that either, as far as I can tell.

Well, I seem to remember McGrath saying at the start of his opening statement something like "There are two questions to be addressed here: "is God a delusion?" and "is belief in God dangerous"" and it was in answer to the first question that he made the remarks I paraphrased earlier.

OK. I've now gone back and listened again to the beginning of the statement, (and I will never forgive you for making me do that, Greyman, ;-)), and I find that my memory was not letting me down. It's at 27:15.

84. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #149601 by SteveN on March 26, 2008 at 1:41 am

Since our rapid-fire and somewhat off-topic discussion (mea culpa!) concerning intellectual dishonesty was resolved so satisfactorily, I actually found the time to listen to the debate. For the umpteenth time, I had the urge to shout at McGrath "Address the point! Enough of the woolliness, already!" Apart from his extremely irritating rhetorical style ("it seems to me", "this is an extremely important question" etc) he categorically fails to answer the questions that he poses himself. He said in his opening that he would address the question of whether God is a delusion and then provides no evidence whatsoever. His argument was simply (paraphrasing) "unlike 2 plus 2 equals 4, we can't prove most of the important beliefs in our lives, such as democracy is better than facism". How on Earth does that even begin to address the question of God's existence?

Another point. I can now understand why he switched from science to theology early in his career. He would probably would have made an awful scientist. Although many of my team are religious, I wouldn't employ someone with his profound lack of objectivity in the lab as a technician, let alone as an independent researcher.

85. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #149384 by SteveN on March 25, 2008 at 2:27 pm

bonzai wrote:

...steve and steveN here are trying to argue that there is some merit in being a fundamentalist,--"intellectual honesty" which means an absence of intellect, as it turns out.

NOOOOOOO! That's like saying that I believe there is some merit in being a Nazi because they had snazzy uniforms. With the sole exception of the intellectual honesty bit, I have a massively higher regard for moderate theists than I have for fundies. Like I said earlier, some of my scientific colleagues whom I respect very highly, are also religious.

Edit: I'm off to bed now. I hope there's not a million posts to read when I get up ;-)

86. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #149369 by SteveN on March 25, 2008 at 2:16 pm

Bonzai,

Part of our going round in circles has been due to speed of this thread. I haven't been able to keep up to date in some cases. I think that we can agree (have agreed?) that intellectual dishonesty requires some intellectual involvement. In this regard, the ignorant and deluded fundie (through no fault of his/her own) is not dishonest. I also agree wholeheartedly with Riley that the charlatans at AIG and the DI are orders of magnitude more dishonest than the moderate theist.

Concerning your question...

So how am I dishonest if I knowingly interpret the bible because I genuinely believe that the Bible is meant to be understood in its proper context and that revelation is ongoing which speaks to our time?

...it is, in my opinion, the methods you use to interpret the bible that reflect on your degree of intellectual honesty. If you have a genuinely objective method of interpreting the text to reveal the intention of the author (story or fact), something perhaps that a computer could be programmed to do, then that would be fine. Such a system would retrospectively reveal everything in Genesis etc to be intended fiction and perhaps a certain battle as intended historical fact. Until now, I am unaware of such analytical systems and decisions seem to be made by a bunch of guys arguing over some minor point or turn of phrase. Your statement "that revelation is ongoing which speaks to our time" seems to indicate that you believe the texts should be interpreted to match what is currently known. If so, I'm sorry, but that does seem to be intellectually dishonest to me. The authors of the OT had certain intentions and beliefs when they wrote the passages and it is not appropriate to retrospectively change these perceived intentions. I personally think that it is highly probable that the authors believed every word to be factually correct and until relatively recently this has been the view of virtually everyone.

87. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #149345 by SteveN on March 25, 2008 at 1:43 pm

Bonzai wrote:

So "intellectual honesty" honesty" to you basically mean the absence of intellect or reflection, Strange definition but in that case I agree 100% than fundies are more intellectual honest. It is not a compliment.

Yahoo! We have reached an agreement! I, in turn, in my post #103 agreed that:

If a fundamentalist were to be fully aware of the data and be educated enough to understand the reliability and strength of the data but were to still ignore it in preference for the bible, then I agree that such a person would be even more dishonest.

I guess that if we had, from the outset, restricted 'intellectual dishonesty' to those who actually thought about and were knowledgeable about all aspects of the topic, we could have saved ourselves a lot of misunderstanding.

88. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #149335 by SteveN on March 25, 2008 at 1:35 pm

Bonzai asked:

Then so do the fundies who pray to the "Holy Spirit" to guide them cherry pick and they have no system at all. You think that is more honest?

Yes, because they are not knowingly doing the cherry-picking. As Steve Zara said (and what really sums up the whole point I was trying to make) "You can be honest, but also stupid, ignorant and wrong." People like McGrath do not have the excuse of stupidity and ignorance

89. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #149331 by SteveN on March 25, 2008 at 1:26 pm

Bonzai wrote in post #113:

Theologians may not think that they are "cherry picking", they have systems and debates, The fundies cherry pick, but arbitrarily.

Indeed, theologians may not think that they are cherry-picking, and they may have big conferences and debates to decide what to accept as fact and what next to label as 'intended metaphor' but in the absence of evidence, all they're doing is cherry-picking.

90. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #149323 by SteveN on March 25, 2008 at 1:13 pm

Bonzai wrote in post 103:

Fundies don't cherry pick? Do you honestly think even fundies believe in a flat earth?

Well, the references in Genesis to the 'Circle of the Earth' is vague enough that even the most ardent fundamentalist can safely interpret that to mean 'sphere'.

It is not like if you can accept one premise without evidence, namely that God exists, therefore anything goes. This is a point that the "rational crusaders" on this site often miss.

I would be surprised if many, if any, of the contributors here think that those who believe in God will automatically believe in anything. Many of my scientific colleagues for whom I have the greatest respect are also theists. Needless to say, I think that they are intellectually dishonest when it comes to their faith, but I don't expect them to believe in fairies or astrology any more than I do.

91. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #149314 by SteveN on March 25, 2008 at 12:57 pm

Riley, I posted my comment #100 before seeing your post #98.

You said:

There is so much controversy because there is so little evidence.

Well, in the absence of evidence, the honest thing to do is to provisionally assume it's all myth until such time that supporting evidence becomes available

Yes it's intellectually dishonest to claim certain knowledge about something for which you have so little evidence. But isn't the degree of certainty with which a faith claim is held, the very thing that differentiates the "moderate" from the "fundamentalist"? If certainty is the measure of intellectually dishonesty, then by definition the "fundamentalists" are more intellectually dishonest!

As I stated in my post #100, it is the methodology of the moderates that I find intellectually dishonest. People like McGrath knowingly pervert the normal protocols of intellectual pursuit to shoe-horn the bible into their world-view. If a fundamentalist were to be fully aware of the data and be educated enough to understand the reliability and strength of the data but were to still ignore it in preference for the bible, then I agree that such a person would be even more dishonest. The 'intellectually honest' fundie I was referring to in my initial post was the home-schooled kind who honestly believes the bible to be a factual, historical document written by, or inspired by, God and who has been lied to sufficiently to reject what little knowledge he or she has of science. Such people are, in my opinion, ignorant and deluded but not intellectually dishonest in the way that cherry-picking moderates are.

92. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #149309 by SteveN on March 25, 2008 at 12:42 pm

Riley wrote in post 95

So on the one hand you have "moderates" who acknowledge that there is a continuing struggle to figure out exactly what it is that God wants. They acknowledge that they've been wrong before and they are continually willing to change their model of the world as new evidence presents itself.

Of course, from an objective and external viewpoint, the moderate who accepts the scientific findings concerning evolution, the age of the Earth, the flood etc is more honest than the fundie who rejects the evidence. My point, right from the beginning, is that the fundie thinks his evidence is stronger and doesn't commit the intellectually dishonest sin of cherry picking the data to fit the theory. If the moderates you refer to were to only accept the parts of the bible for which there was evidence, then there would be very little left in which to believe, including the belief in God. What happens in reality is that moderates start with the bible, label all scientifically disproven parts retrospectively as 'intended metaphor', hand-wave away the sickening, viscious parts to maintain the 'Good Book' image and then quibble ad nauseum about the meaning of the rest.

93. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #149299 by SteveN on March 25, 2008 at 12:12 pm

To Bonzai and Riley

I seem to be having real problems getting my point across here. I am NOT suggesting that it is only intellectually honest to wholly accept or wholly reject a particular piece of text. As I tried to make clear with my Henry V and Odessey analogies, there may be snippets of historical truths in the bible, but the only way to determine this is with independent evidence, be it historical or archaelogical. The intellectual dishonesty comes with the methods used to label something metaphor and something else fact: it is almost invariably based on negation by science or on personal preference. Bonzai claims that there are objective methods used to analyse the text in order to determine the intent of the authors (i.e. story or historical record) but if that is so, why is there still so much controversy. I asked for a referencee to a guide explaining what sophisticated believers accept as myth and what is considered to be fact, but this has not been provided. All I can find are modern versions of 'how many angels can dance on a pin?'

94. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #149244 by SteveN on March 25, 2008 at 10:08 am

Bonzai said in post 71:

But except for the fundies, Christians are not claiming, and are not obliged to claim that every bit of the bible is factually accurate.

You seem to be missing again the point I'm trying so hard to make. Whether or not parts of the bible are factual or not is irrelevant. It is the method by which parts are condemned to be allergory/metaphor and others to be factual based on nothing more than personal opinion that is intellectually dishonest. Until relatively recently, the Adam and Eve story, the Flood etc. were considered by most people in Europe to be factually true. Very few (if any) of the 16th Century theologians suggested that Genesis was 'just a metaphor'. Now that science has shown this to be nonsense, it is dishonest to say "of course, Genesis was never intended to be taken literally - how silly of you to think that"

You probably have the same problem with Homer, Lao Tze and any ancient texts for that matter. Even if you adhere to rigorous scholarship there will be differences in interpretations and opinions, It doesn't mean the scholarship is arbitrary though.

If the sholarship involves comparing the texts with other contempory accounts and with archaeological findings, then I have no problems, of course. However, if I claim that the although much of the Odyssey is metaphorical, Odysseus really did fight a cyclops and that Zeus really exists based on no evidence whatsoever, then I am being intellectually dishonest.

95. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #149229 by SteveN on March 25, 2008 at 9:38 am

Bonzai asked in post 45:

Would you say it is "intellectually more honest" to read Shakespeare simply on face value while ignoring all allusions, metaphors and historical context?

Of course not, but I'm not claiming Shakespeare to be factually accurate. This actually makes for a good metaphor. If I had been brought up in a society that accepted 'Henry V' to be an accurate description of events, I would be intellectually honest to believe it. I would also be intellectually honest if I had been brought up to consider the play to be a work of fiction loosely based on real, independently verifiable events (e.g. the Battle of Agincourt). I would, however, be intellectually dishonest if I were to consider the parts that have been shown to be fiction as allergory but accept other parts (e.g. the text of the 'Eve of Saint Crispin's Day' speech) to be factually accurate based on nothing more than my personal worldview.

Some have sophisticated systems to do the picking and choosing, it is called exegesis. It is not arbitrary.

If it's not arbitrary, why are no two opinions the same? If you are aware of a widely accepted, authoritative guide to what is fact and what is fiction in the bible (and more importantly the basis for these distinctions), then I would be grateful for the source. All I can find is personal opinion and selective cherry-picking wrapped up in clever names.

96. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #149166 by SteveN on March 25, 2008 at 8:09 am

Bonzai asked:

How does ignorance get equated with honesty?

To give you a (perhaps not totally) hypothetical example, if a creationist has been told since birth that the bible is the true, literal word of God, that the universe is 6000 years old and that scientific evidence (fossils, radiodating etc) to the contrary is flawed or falsified, he or she is being honest (as far as he or she is concerned) when arguing this point. A sophisticated believer who dismisses the Garden of Eden, the Flood, the Exodus etc as mere stories because they are clearly contradicted by evidence but believes in a creator who guided evolution, answers prayers, creates souls etc is being intellectually dishonest because he or she has cherry-picked the data to fit his or her personal (probably unique) world-view.

97. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #149159 by SteveN on March 25, 2008 at 7:50 am

Bonzai,

I have just read your post that came up seven minutes after mine. It seems to me that you believe that I was suggesting that the only true and consistent belief is a fundamentalist, literal one. This was not my intention. My only point is that the fundamentalist belief is, as far as the fundie is concerned, intellectually honest. The sophisticated believer has to jump through hoops to fit the bible into a modern world-view and this, in my opinion, is intellectually dishonest. One should decide which parts of the bible are historically or literally true (if any) based on evidence, not personal feelings.

Those who claim that the bible is a handbook for morality and ethics are being equally dishonest. Sure, there are good and noble sections giving good advice, but there are also horrendous, viscious sections that would be used only by a psychopath as a moral guide. Picking the good bits and ignoring the bad bits is simply dishonest.

98. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #149148 by SteveN on March 25, 2008 at 7:28 am

Bonzai, by his own admission, ranted:

You may have more sympathy for the fundamentalists because you share their shallow, "born again" mindsets, only different "religion".

I don't have sympathy for the fundies - quite the opposite. I was pointing out that if they believe the bible to be the highest order of evidence (which is clearly insane) then the conclusions they draw are, as far as they are concerned, perfectly consistent and logical. They are at least (in their minds) not selecting the bits of the bible that fit their views. Nice combination of 'ad hominem' and 'atheism is just a religion' by the way.

I am sick of idiotic atheists who insist that the only consistent believer is the fundamentalist. Their fucking book is not consistent internally if you take the naive, literalist approach and it needs to be interpreted, it has always been the case and that's what theology is about, at least a large part of it.There is no scriptural basis to say that "God" is an literalist even for the believers.

Well, this idiotic atheist is unaware of the clear guidelines in the bible that indicate which parts are allegorical and which parts are literally true. If this is obvious to your vastly superior intellect, perhaps you would be so kind as to let us know.

Even if you disagree with something you don't set up a strawman and then shoot it down to declare victory.

What strawman? I merely stated that, in my opinion, people who pick and choose what to believe to be true based on nothing more than their own world-view are being intellectually dishonest. If a student or post-doc in my lab selected data that fitted their hypothesis but ignored data that contradicted it, I would similarly accuse him or her of intellectual dishonesty.

If you want to criticize religion at least try to understand it first.

So, as I know next to nothing about astrology, I am not allowed to criticise it. I suppose the same applies to ghosts, UFOs, crystal healing, scientology, and any number of world views and religions based on delusions.

In the end, if you pick and choose without evidence the bits that you personally accept as fact and those that you consider to be just a story, you're left with nothing more than 'shit you made up.'

99. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #149037 by SteveN on March 25, 2008 at 2:53 am

tacitus wrote in post #7:

[McGrath] is the product of the type of Christianity that is thoroughly despised by American fundamentalists (perhaps as much as atheists are despised) in that they are very selective about what they take from the Bible -- using only the feel-good Jesusy (sic) stuff and relegating the rest to being merely historical background and myth.

I actually agree with the fundamentalists on this point (never thought I'd say that!). I have more 'respect' intellectually speaking for the fundamentalists in this regard. The fundies, highly deluded though they are, at least have what they regard to be evidence for their beliefs; i.e. the bible. That they think this 'evidence' trumps all scientific evidence to the contrary is of course delusion bordering on the insane, but the McGrath method of cherry-picking the bits he wants to believe and hand-waving away the obviously ridiculous parts as myth and allegory is, in my opinion, intellectually bankrupt in the extreme. The fundies have the excuse of indoctriniation and ignorance. McGrath and his kind on the other hand knowingly twist and corrupt the standards of intelluctual pursuit.

100. Writer Arthur C Clarke dies at 90

Comment #146316 by SteveN on March 18, 2008 at 11:58 pm

I also feel a sense of loss at his passing. He was a great infuence on my life because it was reading his books when a young teenager (or even younger), together with those of Asimov, that crystalised my sense of wonder of the universe and my life-long fascination with science.