1051. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #53359 by Corylus on July 1, 2007 at 2:48 am

Wow. What a review! Considering where it is published I am sure this will be read by many. Good thing too.

Disagree with one thing though. Pekineses are not adorable. They are bad-tempered,lazy, snarly little walking hearth rugs. They don's chase sticks or their tails, they won't play with a ball and they don't look like they are smiling like labradors do. Miserable little gits.

1052. In Defense of Witchcraft

Comment #53202 by Corylus on June 30, 2007 at 4:23 am

Paul
Your thought experiments are quite hard to tease out and answer because I am not sure how you are using your terms and what assumptions you are making.

If I understand you correctly, you are getting into the huge questions of personal identity and being through time. Both a bit trickly to sum up!


Let me then concentrate on you statement that "Meaning has no meaning if it is only temporary".

Why does something have to be eternal in order to have meaning? All I can say about this is that God does not seem to agree. Our sun will konk out eventually, and (if understand the physicists correctly) eventually the universe will stop expanding and contract and everything will be squished.


It may be this example is too nebulous, and in your world view it may be that you want eternal communion with God as a being both part of and outside of the universe. OK. Lets get more concrete.


In terms of specific life having no meaning if it is not eternal, let me give you an example. Consider the pupa stage of an insect. Is it a catapillar or is it a butterfly? Neither and both - it is a thing in ofitself - a type of life. Does it have a purpose? Well, pupas don't get out much so we can only assume that it's purpose is one of transition. This then is life with a meaning and purpose defined not by it's eternity, but instead by its transitory and transitional nature. Presumably you feel God created this life and thought it good?


The same is true to a certain extent to the human stage of puberty. It is about transition and change, it has meaning, but it does not last forever. (Good thing too, if you ask me,... remembers with a shudder!)

1053. In Defense of Witchcraft

Comment #53030 by Corylus on June 29, 2007 at 3:28 am

PaulE

It seems that you are still chatting on here. It strikes me that I didn't really answer your question to me. I am sorry about that, I am afraid that work intervened.

I love that there loads of articles added daily to this site, but it does mean that people's comments can get easily overlooked, so apologies in advance if I do that again!

Anyway,

There are two options - God, Not God. The God package has some undesirable content, but the Not God package lacks morality, any purpose or point to life, etc. In fact, the Not God package requires far more intellectual weakness, because you have to pretend that Hitler was wrong to kill millions of Jews, homosexuals, gypsies etc. With the God package, you are surrounded by people saying (and singing) stupid things, but why is it the less reasonable option?
Do you not think that many people choose 'Not God' without committing themselves to the philosophical implications of their choice?

Well, firstly, I would say people commit themselves to all types of positions without considering the philosophical implications. However, this is no criticism of the positions themselves. This just means that some people don't think in these terms.

In relation to the choice you have given me, I would say that as a choice it does not work. This is because you have two presuppositions in there that I would want to question.

1) The Not God package lack morality
2) The Not God package lacks meaning and purpose to life.

You are chatting to others about number one and I do not want to butt in. I can't resist slyly pointing out the following though. I completely agree that the bible provides plenty of evidence that genocide against Jews is wrong – however, it does not seem so sure about the question of genocide by Jews…

Re: number two. It is very easy to get the terms 'meaning' and 'purpose' confused. Many completely different types of lives have purpose (lots of different jobs, circumstances etc.) Some people find 'purpose' in the most peculiar past-times and God is neither here nor there. This is a very different thing than talking about meaning though. (E.g John Rawls talks about a mathematician who spends all him time counting blades of grass, which is a lovely image. We can say his life has purpose: counting grass. Does his life have meaning though…. umm!)

So I will presume that you are using the term 'meaning' in a universal transcendent way and not talking about simple 'purpose' alone.

Do I believe that there is such a thing as a overarching, transcendent meaning of life? Have to say "No". However, I am not entirely sure that God provides this either! Let me explain.

Look at the statement "God provides meaning to life". How?

You can say that "God gives meaning to life as he created it." OK. (Setting aside for a moment question how question begging that statement is) but that does not give you any guidance as to what life is for: back to meaning and purpose again.

You can say "God believes my life has meaning". OK. However, that says nothing about you though. This statement is only about God's views and you appear to be wanting 'meaning' for yourself.

You can say "My life has meaning because it is a way to reach the world beyond in which I will see God and (maybe) become part of God." OK again. However, this says everything about the next life and nothing about this one. You appear to want meaning for this one. (N.B. This is why I agree with your statement above that the Kantian summan bonum argument is not a proof of God).

Sum up: I am afraid that this is a false choice.

1054. I believe that there is no God.

Comment #52938 by Corylus on June 28, 2007 at 3:01 pm

Careful…

There is a difference between doubt and defeasibility* (a.k.a subject to nullification).

To say that a statement is doubtful (i.e. God exists) is to say one is not sure about it's validity. To say that a statement is defeasible merely means that it can be disproved. These are two different things.

You can say that you have no doubt concerning the validity of the statement that 'God does not exist'.

You cannot say that that the statement 'God does not exist' is non-defeasible.

Truth claims do not work that way. To argue that any statement is non-defeasible is to go lightly tripping down the path to 'faith'. Case in point: Intelligent design is non-defeasible.

You can say that you "believe there is no God". However, the term "believe" can be easily confused with "faith". It is very easy to lose all intellectual credibility here. I would not make this statement, although I can completely understand where people are coming from when they do :) ... I fear confusion would ensue.

(*Some people use the term 'falsifiable' in this context. I don't, simply because this term has a huge baggage in relation to scientific claims. I am not talking about just scientific truth claims here: I am talking about all truth claims.)

…….

Re the Jell-o debate: I f+"king hate Jell-o (or jelly). It is made with the vile substance that is gelatine. Which is used by lazy 'chefs' and cheap and nasty food manufacturers with; I suspect; with the sole purpose of pissing off vegetarians.

1055. God Hates the World

Comment #52908 by Corylus on June 28, 2007 at 1:24 pm

I must have the last word! I must. I must. I MUST...

(Stamps foot).

Or I'll scream and scream and scream until I'm sick!!!

1056. In Defense of Witchcraft

Comment #52759 by Corylus on June 28, 2007 at 2:53 am

PaulE

Thank you for calling me a philosopher. I am just philosophically inclined. I would not presume to lay claim to that title without many more years of study (about 20 should do it).

I see you have played the morality card. Oh dear, that one does get people wound up!! You say that Dawkins does not go into enough detail about this... Well, give the guy a break he is a biologist not a moral philosopher!

I can only advise you to read Breaking the Spell by Dan Dennett: he talks about this issue. He comes to the conclusion that using scripture as a guide to morality is actually a morally weak position. Morality is more important than an ancient book, people are more important than some (actually quite hard to pin down and define) notion of objective morality.

Anyway, I see you are chatting to RabbitDynamite about this already... and I have to go to work :(

1057. 'I have never been happier' says the man who won gold but lost God

Comment #52741 by Corylus on June 28, 2007 at 1:14 am

Leigh

Ignorant question: What do people in that deep do on Sundays? Apart from go to church. Can they fix the dripping tap or is that work?

As far as I can work out (I have never been in that deep myself), the entire family go to church in the morning. They then drop the kids off at Sunday School. They go home.

The energetic ones use the empty house to get up to all kinds of naughtiness (this doesn't count as "work" apparently).

The less energetic ones do the following. Any male slumps in front of the TV. Females are then expected to cook large dinners generally consisting of vast quanities of roast flesh. They consume this meal. The male then snores. The female does the washing up. (The females' activities don't count as "work" either).

1058. Rival to evolution may enter schools

Comment #52737 by Corylus on June 28, 2007 at 12:54 am

Question: Does the Scottish Parliament have an e-petitions service like 10 Downing Street?

See this recent petition:

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/NoCreSciEd/

They provide a response if more than 200 sign (which you get mailed when the petition closes)

http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page12021.asp

I suspected the response was a bit of a fob off actually – what will their (as yet unwritten) guidelines actually say?? But nevermind, a response is a response!

Maybe this is a way forward…

1059. Darwin Still Rules, but Some Biologists Dream of a Paradigm Shift

Comment #52656 by Corylus on June 27, 2007 at 4:21 pm

Spinoza

I'm guessing you wouldn't go for "epistemological break" either ;)

1060. Egypt mufti says female circumcision forbidden

Comment #52651 by Corylus on June 27, 2007 at 4:12 pm

Gordon

I love poetry - I even write it occasionally when in the mood.

I must say though I have never once considered the possibility of rhyming "smegma" with "member" (hmm maybe that's actually a half-rhyme... well anyway)

I just have to say : I am in awe!!

1061. In Defense of Witchcraft

Comment #52643 by Corylus on June 27, 2007 at 3:38 pm

Warning: long boring philosophy post. Anyone not into such things: feel free to skip.

PaulEmecz

Thank you for clarifying: your statement makes so much more sense as a response rather than a statement.

Thank you also for providing a 'first' – I have never before seen anyone; when being accused of trolling; actually admit it! I have to say that I find your honestly on this matter hugely refreshing :) As to whether it is ever right to "troll". I would say that you might get away with it on occasion as long as you are polite. (There is a spectacularly rude troll leaping about on other threads at the moment that has got even me cross: and I don't rile easy). In general though I think the GIGO principle will apply… garbage in, garbage out…

Anyway, to work. Re the question of philosophy and science and rationality in general. You seem to have got the idea that I am a scientist. Nope! For the record my background is psychology (undergrad) and philosophy (postgrad). N.B. the debate about whether psychology is a science or not I will save for another day.

You said

I hope you did feel insulted… being told you were not questioning, thinking, reasoning beings. That is exactly how it feels as a person of faith to be told that I just don't understand, that I am too lazy etc.

Well, I never make that sort of statement about people of faith. I am perfectly happy to admit that they can be completely rational in many areas of their lives. That is not the issue. The issue is whether or not faith itself is rational. I would say no, and no again! I would then point to people of faith who are honest enough to admit this. Kierkegaard did not talk about 'fear and trembling' for nothing. Faith is non-rational – that is entirely the point! Faith is about when discussing evidence is not enough – it is about working on trust. It is about 'giving over' to God. Please don't make the mistake of thinking that atheists don't understand faith. I for one do: and that is one of my motivations for not "doing" God.

I think also that one of the reasons people on here get wound up about point this is because some of the propaganda that is coming out of the US at the moment. There is a buzz phrase currently making the rounds known as 'reasonable faith'. It is being used by the evangelicals, in a fit of (I darkly suspect Orwellian inspired) dishonesty they are attempting to give arguments credence by calling things the opposite to what they actually are.

For example, "Liberty University" (a place when young students are brainwashed into naïve creationism). "Intelligent Design" (I don't understand how everything is so darn complicated: I guess a magic man did it). And now, "reasonable faith". I actually think such a term demeans faith and makes it sound way easier than it is or ever should be.

(BTW. If you decide to stick about on this site - There is a poster on here called "Bizarro Dawkins". He is a very bright young man at the aforementioned Liberty University. He thinks that the universe is 6000 years old and this is a 'reasonable' statement. He has been completely brainwashed and his mind is being stunted – in a manner that even a heathen like me wants to call "sinful". I truly fear for the state of his mental health when he realises the extent to which he has been lied to. If there is one thing that I wish one of our believing posters would do it is to engage with him, find common ground and get through to him. If he crops up when you are about, please give this some thought.)

Now, re your statement…

So, I asked him to consider how it would be if this sort of approach were used against scientists. The criticism would be that scientists are unaware of the assumptions implicit in science, and unable to question these; that scientists deal with what we see, without realising that a great deal of processing of sense data has already happened by the time it reaches our consciousness etc.

Yes, I actually do understand where you are coming from on this. Epistemology is a hugely interesting and very complicated subject. Unfortunately, you will find that your non-contentious point above has also been shameless hijacked and twisted by third-rate thinkers that give even thinking a bad name. Listen to this.

http://richarddawkins.net/article,684,Lewis-Wolpert-and-William-Lane-Craig-on-Religion,Today-Programme-BBC-Radio-4

This is a debate between a scientist (Lewis Wolpert: an individual prone to making sweeping and insulting generalisations about philosophers: and yes I can understand why such statements irritate you). Unfortunately, his opponent is a brain dead cretin who appears to believe that 'brain in a vat' thought experiments among to "proof" of faith.

I can understand how people of faith can look at look at people (for example those people in the "musical" video on here) and say "That is not a Christian: that is an idiot!" However, I do hope you can, in turn, understand how I a philosophically inclined individual like me can look at a Christian philosopher and say "That is not a philosopher: that's an idiot!" Especially when they attempt to peddle the lie that faith is "reasonable".

Anyway, it is late and I have twittered on for long enough. Again, thanks for clarifying.

1062. 'I have never been happier' says the man who won gold but lost God

Comment #52444 by Corylus on June 27, 2007 at 3:37 am

Don't blame him.

Doing Songs of Praise is enough to turn anyone into a cynic...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2GFfpgTBt0

1063. God Hates the World

Comment #52442 by Corylus on June 27, 2007 at 3:28 am

Benway

I've been good too. I saw a three people reading the TGD paperback in the course of my tube and train journey yesterday. (Didn't see anyone with David Robertson's book though).

I showed admirable restraint and refrained from cackling evily.

1064. In Defense of Witchcraft

Comment #52441 by Corylus on June 27, 2007 at 3:19 am

I'm really glad Sam picked out Bunting and Eagleton here.

These two writers are vying for the prize of most, irritating, condescending, patronising, self-righteous reviewers I have read. (IMHO Terry Eagleton leads by a whisker, but only due to his whittering on for so much longer).

Paul Emerz. I am afraid I did not understand your post and what point you are trying to make. I have studied philosophy. Part of which is, of course, the philosophy of science. In order to be intellectually honest I had to look into science as well as philosophy in order to so. I have to say I find it very, very hard indeed. (Especially theoretical physics, which so many philosophers of science seem to talk about, I find myself wondering exactly how much they understand).

This is one of the reasons I am on this site, to learn more about science. This is also the main reason I admire Dawkins - I don't agree with him on every point, but I am grateful to him for helping an arts/humanities types like me get their head round scientific concepts.

Anyway, are you saying that:

a) Philosophers and scientists should talk to each other? Completely and utterly agree.

b) Philosophy and science are incommensurate fields? Don't think so, they are both about method (ignoring Feyerabend!). It may be that at some future point human understanding reaches a place at which simply unanswerable questions/conflicts come to light. I honestly don't know the answer to this one. I reckon we should bracket this question for the time being. It will say about this though, that it seems very arrogant to assume that just because we can't understand things no-one ever will.

c) Philosophy is a superior endeavour to science?

or

d) Science is a superior endeavour to philosophy?

I don't agree with either statement and I will refrain from using rude words concerning them.

e) Are you simply just saying that Sam's analogy above is overextended? That's debateable, but I am reading it only as a charming piece of rhetoric and more about humour than argument.

f) Is Jack Rawlinson correct? Are you merely trolling? I do hope not.

Re: Trolling. Why on earth is Rebel on a troll thread? In agreement with Yorker and others on this one. I don't always agree with Rebel, but then I don't always agree with just about everyone one here. I myself, of course, am always right... ;)

I understand Rebel's first language is not English. I am in really impressed. The day I go on a website and start talking philosophy in a second language is the day I criticise Rebel - and that day is not coming anytime soon.

1065. God Hates the World

Comment #52036 by Corylus on June 26, 2007 at 2:04 am

Wow, I wake up and discover I have stumbled into the alternate universe that is Wee Flea world.

Every single one of your disciples ….. has proved my point – that those who follow you on this site will make the direct link between the Phelps family and all religion. It was inevitable but nonetheless still disappointing. Just read through their posts and you will see how chilling, inane and sad it all is.

Disciples! Please! You just cannot move out of your own frame of reference can you?

I leave to the others on here that you have derided to defend themselves, but I can't let this one pass…

Corylus (49) thinks that Christianity teaches that homosexuals burn in hell (which is of course nonsense – Christianity actually teaches that all who reject God will live without God – and calls that hell). He then makes the quantum leap that if you believe in Hell you are like the Phelps and 'hate the world' etc.

Well, that was a remarkable reading of my post: which was I reckon admirably measured in the circumstances. I recall even praising you highly for showing humanity and empathy and disliking the video shown. Oh well.

My main point was that this video is about larger questions than the rights and wrongs of homosexuality. This is what I said..

Instead it has everything to do with what people feel they have the right to make their children do, and say, and believe. Furthermore this has everything to do with what theoretical justifications we respect for these "rights" and those we don't.

In case you didn't recognise it that was an invitation to have a civil conversation concerning the abstract question of what rights adults have, what rights children have and how conflicts between them can be resolved.

So you don't want to have a calm abstract argument: that's cool. I realise that that sort of thing doesn't float everybody's boat.

Oh, I can't resist commenting on Benway's comment. It is on here and should stay on here for two reasons.

1) Freedom of speech, which is hugely important.
2) It's funny. (Unlike you apparently) I happen to be a grown up and I can take insults on the chin, as long as they are amusing.

This is because I enjoy rhetoric and new and inventive uses of language. I have to say that I did find this a hugely amusing comment: especially coming from such a tiny dickie bird.

RD: If you are listening please do not respond to Wee Flea's insults. It is all that he is hoping for, and it simply isn't worth it.

1066. God Hates the World

Comment #51931 by Corylus on June 25, 2007 at 3:00 pm

Wee Flea said

If so could you explain why 99.9999999% of those who have been taught Christianity do not behave in this way?

I never thought I would say this, but I really wish you were right Wee Flea. So, only 1 in 1,000,000,000 think homosexuals will burn in hell. Even allowing for your normal hyperbole, I think you may have your figures wrong.

If this is the case then why is it that the Church of England is presently facing a schism in relation to gay marriage? Show this video in Africa: particularly in places like Nigeria. See what response it elicits.

Excuse my cynicism, but I reckon the reason that even then looniest fundamentalists disown the WBC (what was it Falwell said? "No-one calls them kin") is not due to their stance on homosexuality, but is instead due to the fact that they apportion blame outside of the gay community as well as within it. "Are the WBC saying we are as bad as the fags? Darn it. That ain't right!!"

In any event, the point of showing this video has bugger all to do with homosexuality. (Umm… maybe that's a sentence I should rephrase!)

Instead it has everything to do with what people feel they have the right to make their children do, and say, and believe. Furthermore this has everything to do with what theoretical justifications we respect for these "rights" and those we don't.

Yes. This is an extreme example, and yes I am very glad that you are getting cross watching it. Good for you.

So why show it? Show it because it represents the logical conclusion to an argument. Show it because in order to condemn it (as you do and should) you have to talk about humanity, love and empathy rather than scripture. Show it because when you think you have seen the nadir that humanity can attain, someone comes along and shows you a lower point.

I don't blame God for this video (whether God is loving or not is a meaningless question) I blame people. People who; in what is the epitome of bad faith; seek to blame God for the hatred that is theirs and theirs alone.

You don't like it . Good, but at least have the courage to admit to yourself that the reason you don't like it has everything to do with humanity and nothing to do with God.

1067. God Hates the World

Comment #51887 by Corylus on June 25, 2007 at 1:29 pm

Well the original was naff, but this... I have no words.

This is the sort of thing that makes me wish I didn't speak English. I wish I could hear this and not understand what they are saying (I won't call it singing).

I felt the same after learning some German and then listening to a recording of Hitler.

1068. Doctors' beliefs can hinder patient care

Comment #51879 by Corylus on June 25, 2007 at 1:07 pm

Philip

You're a complete gentleman. Not just for your post above, but for others also.

This is one of my rarest compliments.

Way rarer than: "You're fitter than I am"… but I have to say not quite as rare as: "Damn! You can drink me under the table" :)

Seriously: I mean it.

1069. The Present Threat of the Religious Right to Our Modern Freedoms

Comment #51797 by Corylus on June 25, 2007 at 2:14 am

Wow.

And you hear such dreadful things about American lawyers... Kind of restores my "faith" :)

Go Eddie!

1070. His word: Attacking religion can seem like breaking a butterfly on a wheel

Comment #51795 by Corylus on June 25, 2007 at 2:07 am

Newatheist

I did enjoy that last line of your post #57 above.

I'm an overeducated type myself, but I know pretentious wank when I read it, and I don't like it either.

1071. Doctors' beliefs can hinder patient care

Comment #51792 by Corylus on June 25, 2007 at 1:26 am

Kamisama

Thanks for clarifying: as I said before this is hugely complicated subject. You are right, medical ethics is full of very tricky problems.

If you are really interested in the subject of religion impacting upon doctor's actions, can I recommend the following article on here:

http://richarddawkins.net/article,577,Grief-Without-God,Carol-A-Fiore

This is about an atheist woman who had to deal with doctors giving her a guilt trip about not praying for her terminally ill husband. (Another article that made me very cross indeed).

It appears that there are:

a) doctors who don't believe in God (atheist/agnostic)
b) doctors that believe in God (theist)
c) doctors who think they know the mind of God (arrogant theists)
d) doctors that act as though they are God (generally arrogant theists, but I do admit that this category sometimes includes arrogant atheists) and finally
e) doctors who think they are God (nominally theists, but really just arrogant fuckwits)

a) and b) I can deal with: the rest can go spin.

Excuse the profanity above, but I believe in using the most fitting terms to describe things/people!

Again, thanks for clarifying :)

1072. Doctors' beliefs can hinder patient care

Comment #51687 by Corylus on June 24, 2007 at 5:24 am

Kamisama

Thanks for replying. I am really glad to see that you agree that:

Treatment should not have been denied to the patients described in the article.

Strikes me that there are two questions here that you might want to address:-

1)What is the nature of the patient's problem?

It is the doctor's job to treat the disease/malaise/illness with which they are presented (a point so blindingly obvious that it is often ignored). It is not the job of the doctor to treat the symptoms only; the original illness will only re-manifest itself. (Ok with palliative care this is unavoidable, but that it a separate point.)

With BIID when amputating are you treating the symptom or the illness? Will the illness re-manifest with further amputation requests? I would suggest yes. Re your attempt to justify amputation via the four principles of medical ethics: good try. Unfortunately this falls down spectacularly with the principle of autonomy: if you pardon the disturbing mental image :) How on earth will having a leg removed increase your autonomy?? Won't exactly help you get about will it?

In any event you are presenting a false dichotomy here. The doctor's choice are not limited to either amputating or allowing a patient to injure themselves, there is the further choice of psychiatric admission to consider.

This is further born out in your discussion of women with cancer genes considering mastectomies. You say that you would send then to a psychologist. Why? They are not mentally ill; indeed to be unconcerned about this situation might be a symptom of mental illness. I would instead send them to a statistician – so they can have idea of the level of risk they actually face – and can made an informed decision accordingly. The job of the doctor is to help patients make choices, not make their choices for them.

This brings me to my next question:

2) What actions / advice is it within the remit of the doctor to give or provide?

I would say that it is not within a doctor's remit to play God. It is the doctor's job to provide a service to the patient. It is the doctor's job to treat the body, and to treat the patient NOT themselves. You note,

Some doctors who decide not to treat patients on religious grounds may be abusing principles. They may well have the well being of the patient's eternal souls in mind.

(Bracketing for a moment the question of whether such things exist). Have you considered the possibility that the 'eternal souls' for which these doctors are showing such solicitude are not actually those of the patient?

To conclude, I did not argue that requiring 'physicians to hold particular beliefs' was a solution to the ethical dilemmas in medicine. My argument is simply that doctors need to be able to reason clearly in order to work through problems. A doctor may hold any religious view they choose: that is completely their right. I am not denying that they may be capable of making good decisions.

For example in the case above they might take the view that treatment is justified because they may have read St. Augustine's view on the non-culpability of rape victims. Fine. They may well have a religious reason for desiring a particular course of action, however, they also need to be able to make a case for this action that stands or falls on its own merits. Bringing religion into ethics merely 'multiplies entities unnecessary'. You simply don't need it.

1073. His word: Attacking religion can seem like breaking a butterfly on a wheel

Comment #51589 by Corylus on June 23, 2007 at 3:13 pm

I have to say I actually like David Baddiel!

He comes across as a bit 'laddish' but he also seems a remarkably sane, funny and kind individual. (He got quite cross recently at being sent books written by Jewish writers to review simply because of his Jewish heritage).

Ok, he appears to buy into the strange idea that kicking balls about is a subject of deep gravity and importance, but other males I respect seem to go for this also, so I won't hold it against him. (Maybe I should write a book of my own. "Manchester United is not great: football poisons everything??")

He really should have done some research on his byline though. This comes originally from Pope, and it is often quoted when people put massive effort into crushing what is puny and unimportant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_breaks_a_butterfly_on_a_wheel%3F

Unfortunately, in relation to Dawkins this is a bad move. Mary Midgely trotted this out in relation to her criticism of the Selfish Gene. (RD if you are listening I am sorry for dragging up ancient history).

This can be an unbelievably arrogant allegory if put into the wrong hands.

1074. 'Purity' ring case in High Court

Comment #51569 by Corylus on June 23, 2007 at 12:23 pm

Rachel

Thank you for your post, it was really interesting to get a lawyer's take on this.

Get well soon :)

Re: daytime telly. Get yourself sky plus: it's worth it.

1075. Doctors' beliefs can hinder patient care

Comment #51566 by Corylus on June 23, 2007 at 12:10 pm

Wee Flea

Have you read Godless Morality: Keeping Religion out of Ethics. By Richard Holloway? A bishop I believe from your neck of the woods…

If yes what did you think of it? I admit it was a couple of years back that I read it (so I am willing to have my memory refreshed), but if I recall correctly it was an interesting work by a non-secularist arguing that religion actually muddies the waters of ethical theory…

I have to say; as someone who has actually read this; that I am a tad peeved at your accusation that we are all a bunch of atheistic fundamentalists unable to listen to the religious people.

I myself will listen, and I debate politely with anyone who wishes to talk to me: as long as they are polite in return and demonstrate both a willingness to listen and common humanity.

If this proviso makes me an atheistic fundamentalist who wishes to impose their morality on everyone else, then I can only say… Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

PS. Yes I am aware that the original Hippocratic Oath forbids abortion, interestingly enough it also states the following…

I swear by Apollo Physician and Asclepius and Hygieia and Panaceia and all the gods and goddesses, making them my witnesses, that I will fulfil according to my ability and judgment this oath and this covenant…

Would you like this nice pagan bit kept too?

1076. Doctors' beliefs can hinder patient care

Comment #51438 by Corylus on June 23, 2007 at 1:02 am

Kamisama

But what if religious demands were made of non-religious physicians?

That is an interesting point, but I don't think that the example you pick works:

What if research done in Africa (to get around human-research ethics committees) "proved" that FGM could reduce rates of HIV infection? Should physicians be forced to participate in religious rituals simply because they have been recast in a medical setting?

Re FGM reducing the rates of HIV infections. Well, you could argue both ways here. If African countries it might actually be increasing infection i.e. cross contamination of unsterilized "instruments" (remember some babies are born HIV positive) or it might reduce infections by reducing sexual intercourse (nothing like getting your ***** sewn up to stop that!)

However, this argument is a bit like saying that 'supergluing ones knees together prevents pregnancy'. It is the lack of unprotected sex that prevents pregnancy.

There is a difference between ultimate and proximate causation: and doctors need to be taught about this in their training. This way they can not only treat effectively, but also evaluate journal articles critically.

What about "unnecessary" treatments? Cosmetic surgeries on kids who have been coerced by their parents to agree? Drugs known to be ineffective against a particular ailment (antibiotics for viral infections)? Tests unlikely to reveal anything not already known or suspected by the doctor? Etc.

Actually, you can look at this question in light of the four principles I talked about above doctors can refuse all of the above without recourse to any religious reasoning. Unnecessary treatment is covered under non-malificence. N.B cosmetic surgery on children may be permissible if it increases their autonomy later in life. We treat cleft palates (not just for aesthetic reasons) but because, they cause speech problems and autonomy is increased by being about to communicate.

Many surgeons probably refuse (or should refuse) to ampute off people with body integrity identity disorder. They'll amputate the guy who doesn't want to lose his leg, but not the guy who doesn't want the leg. Lifestyle discrimination?

This is covered under the principle of justice. Resources are finite, amputating a healthy limb when there are gangrenous ones waiting to be chopped off, is thus unjustified.

There is no reason to bring God/religion into ethics, it is at best superfluous, in general it leads to sloppy thinking, and at worse it leads to hideous actions.

You are right, this is a hugely complicated subject. However, I completely stand by my view that treatment in the cases above should not have been refused; and for doctors to do so is a breach of both their oaths and their ethical training.

1077. 'Purity' ring case in High Court

Comment #51386 by Corylus on June 22, 2007 at 3:01 pm

Steve99

I suggest a promotion of rings that promote opposite views... "I am dead keen, and willing", and "You need to put a bit of effort in, but you have a chance".

I suppose where you choose to put the ring might be a bit of a clue ;)

I'm sorry, I don't mean to lower the tone, but I find it really hard to take this seriously.

I do feel sorry for this poor girl though... from now until she is 100, whenever she (or a potential employer!) googles herself she will see lots of strangers commenting on her sex life. Dreadful, hideous, lifelong embarrassment. A pity her caring father didn't bear this in mind...

1078. Doctors' beliefs can hinder patient care

Comment #51376 by Corylus on June 22, 2007 at 2:15 pm

Interesting reading…

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/doctors/oath_modern.html

I believe the relevant line here is "above all I must not play at God".

Doctors when training (in most of the west anyway and definitely in the US and UK) are given a seminal text known as the "Principles of Biomedical Ethics".

Four principles for the treatment of patients are laid out. These are:

1) Beneficence - do good to your patient.
2) Non-Malefience -(do no harm, a.k.a. primum non nocere)
3) Autonomy - (seek to both respect and increase the autonomy of your patient)
4) Justice - allocate resources fairly and without prejudice.

These are tricky in that no one principle 'trumps' the other. However, I reckon this case is interesting in that one can argue that all four principles are in play here.

Beneficence: do good to your patient.
These doctors need to remember that their patient is the woman sitting in front of them - not the small chance of a potential patient that may result from a rape.

Non-malificence. 'Harm' can be both mental and physical: being judged and treated with distain when feeling vulnerable constitutes harm. This is not just relevant in rape cases. All exams of this type make you feel vulnerable. (Even if you want to make the case that an 'unborn child' will be harmed, surely more harm/potential pain will result in a later termination than an early one via emergency contraception?) Waiting until septicaemia sets in before aborting an unviable pregnancy is simply unforgivable: for both mother and foetus. The mother's life is at risk. Also, allowing the foetus to develop as long as possible (and thus making it more likely that they can feel pain) simply to satisfy some catholic 'double effect' notion – this reasoning makes me feel truly sick.

Autonomy: this is where the bottom of the barrel is really being scraped. You increase the autonomy of the patient by informing them of all of the options available: not just those that you feel are morally permitted by your favourite deity.

Justice: how is it just that women can receive a different level of care from different hospitals, while either paying for their treatment directly or indirectly via their taxes?

Any doctor who feels themselves unable to act in accordance with these principles, for whatever reason, needs only to refer a patient to a doctor that can.

N.B. I am not a doctor myself (I learnt the above when studying applied moral philosophy) so I would be interested in what any actual doctors/medical professionals on here think about this, and whether they feel the doctors mentioned above are in breach of their oath/training?

I'm thinking yes. Anyone want to convince me otherwise?

1079. 'Purity' ring case in High Court

Comment #51333 by Corylus on June 22, 2007 at 11:39 am

A silver ring given out by a church organisation. Yeah right.

What's the betting it's silver plate?

Don't be surprised if it turns your finger green dear...

1080. An Inquisition in science's name

Comment #51221 by Corylus on June 22, 2007 at 1:51 am

Thanks for that clarification Robert.

As, I said, I'm no physicist...

1081. An Inquisition in science's name

Comment #51212 by Corylus on June 22, 2007 at 1:04 am

Re the article above, I can't improve on Janus' post above. So I am not even going to try.

Biz

Intriguing post, I feel though that I must point out you are flying in the face of most conventional theology...

The Universe and God have very different properties.

Actually no. God, as an omnipresent being, pervades and suffuses the universe, and as such has all the properties of it. This is what is meant by the term immanent. If you think about it he would have to have this property - in order to intervene in physical events.

If you want a more concrete argument re this point, look to the notion that 'God made man in his own image'.

Also

God of course doesn't necessitate a cause. Sure, He cheats. But then, that's what God does isn't it?

Are you implying God tells fibs! Bad Biz. That comment would have got you toasted by the Cardinal mentioned in the article above.


Re: your comment on the second law. I freely admit that I am no physicist so I will leave that to someone else to answer. However, my understanding of this law is that it relates to closed systems, and the universe isn't, um, closed...

1082. The courage of their convictions

Comment #50999 by Corylus on June 21, 2007 at 1:44 am

This just made my morning.

The comments on the Guardian are piling up. Lots of people challenging Theo Hobson to call these people 'cowards'. He He.

Hugely encouraging. Now we need the British government to show some guts and invite these people to their next 'inter-faith/community consultation exercise'.

1083. The God Delusion - Dawkins Feature

Comment #50804 by Corylus on June 20, 2007 at 3:03 am

OZE2

RD did say that his adjective laden discription of god is meant to be comical although still soundly based.

I have for a while held the theory that many of the objections to this sentence are born not out of shock over the invective used. I suspect instead that many people don't like it because (dozy illiterates that they are) they had to spend time looking up all those hard words...

1084. Rushdie knighted in honours list

Comment #50799 by Corylus on June 20, 2007 at 2:39 am

Sigh. The Malaysians are at it now:

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/rtrs/20070620/tts-uk-rushdie-protests-cff01a2.html

Remarkable, how they feel they have the right to dictate to other countries how and in what fashion they honour their citizens. It is not as if this is some dreadful human rights violation that citizens of all countries have a duty to protest against. Like for example,

http://richarddawkins.net/article,1220,Man-to-die-over-insult,Daily-Herald

I never received a reply from the Pakistani High Commission to my polite and respectful letter to them about this. Not even a 'we have received your mail: thank you'. Not that I expected one mind you – violent protest appears to be all that is understood in the Islamic world.

Pewkatchoo

I am not a socialist…

Nah! Get out of town! Never would have guessed ;)

Nevermind mate, I'm fine with honest political disagreement :)

Re: a seat in the Lords. I have actually sat there. Some moons ago on a school trip to the Houses of Parliament. We were told; by some unctuous little weasel; not to go near the seats as they were 'for the Lords'. Down went my rear end. Up the revolution – nothing to lose but our chains!

P.S. Quite comfy – no wonder the old farts doze off.

1085. U.S. circumcision rate drops

Comment #50591 by Corylus on June 19, 2007 at 2:08 am

Many major insurance companies still cover it, and many hospitals offer it free for newborns.

If you are paying insurance premiums for this then it isn't free! In fact those that pay their premiums and do not have this carried out are subsidizing those that do. Maybe some pressure needs to be brought to bear against these insurance companies?

1086. Vatican cardinal calls on Catholics to stop funding Amnesty

Comment #50414 by Corylus on June 18, 2007 at 12:51 am

Off thread:

Sounds like this guy has been having a bit of a tough time of it recently: anyone want to send him a message??

http://richarddawkins.net/article,1210,Diary-of-a-Deserter,Brian

1087. Diary of a Deserter

Comment #50384 by Corylus on June 17, 2007 at 3:33 pm

Brian,

Re your slow breaking away, maybe a new job out of town or a college course?? Both can be good things in themselves (and you meet new people in both situations). Plus the people currently around you will understand why you have to leave because of them.

You seem like a smart, thoughtful person, I reckon you will will be able to meet lots of new friends. The trick is to be really brave and get out there whenever you get to a new place. (Easier said than done, I know, I can be shy myself!)

Best of luck :)

P.S. Word of advice. Don't join any groups that demand excessive exercise (i.e. hill-walking, lane swimming, jumping about in strange clothing etc) or any that demand excessive concentration (e.g. chess or political debate) that way lies both exhaustion and madness: I've been there - I know.

1088. Rushdie knighted in honours list

Comment #50286 by Corylus on June 16, 2007 at 12:30 pm

Well, as a good socialist I have absolutely no time for 'hereditary titles and 'honours'. Re titles: I fail to see why I should grovel to some inbred chinless wonder simply because they have a distant ancestor who was a prince's hooker a few centuries ago and got a title for 'services rendered'.

As for 'honours' the simple truth is that some people earn them and some don't. There are some worthies (charity workers in the main), but the vast majority of those getting their nose into the 'Queen's Birthday Honours' are either faceless civil servants or famous 'entertainers' (who are amply rewarded by their huge incomes anyway).

However, I am all in favour of this one, for the simple reason that it will probably p*ss off Prince Charles. I wonder what the 'Defender of Faiths' and 'Friend of Islam' is making of all this? Has he had words with Mummy?? Also, I find myself wondering whether the invitations he and Horseface receive to toady up to the House of Saud will dry up because of this. Shame. Jug-earred cretin!!

Waits to get flamed by a royalist….

1089. In the know

Comment #50238 by Corylus on June 16, 2007 at 1:18 am

Take philosophy and Socrates. He is the father of western thought because he realised that the key to wisdom is not how much you know, but how well you understand how little you know.

Yes Mr Vernon, Socrates did famously note that the only thing about which he was truly sure was of his own ignorance. However, this can be read in two ways; either as the humble admission of a great mind faced with an infinity complex world or an arrogant assertion that those who would claim to know more than Socrates are "less than ignorant". (Personally, the more that I learn about Socrates, the more I lean towards the latter explanation).

I smell the same thinly veiled arrogance in the above piece. I could take all this twittering on about 'lack of certainty' and 'non knowing' from a proper card carrying agnostic. I might not be able to resist pointing out that there is no point having a mind if you can't make it up, but I could deal. This man is a different beast entirely, or he wouldn't be talking about his work as an Anglican priest. No fence sitting here!

I find this type of believer unbelievably irritating. They like agnostics, but loathe atheists. Agnostics are fine, because they understand how nothing is certain and also have the good manners not to question the certainty that the believers keep for themselves. Personally I prefer the believer that reckons both groups are going to fry in hell. That position is at least consistent and honest.

1090. PBS Revelation: Network's 'Wall Of Separation' Has Religious Right Genesis

Comment #49703 by Corylus on June 13, 2007 at 3:15 am

I believe you Sornord - films are always boring when you know what happens at the end ;)

1091. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #49610 by Corylus on June 12, 2007 at 2:40 pm

Rtambree

Who's neutered?

I do believe that it is the vile, venemous, catty little troll that is Spaghetti Monster. N.B. I don't normally insult trolls outright* but this particular individual is something else. Every post it makes it oozes black bile and also, I suspect, deep jealousy. Methinks the internet it's only form of communication and the only way it can get people to respond... sad really.

I do recall in a previous thread s/he/it refusing to be drawn on the subject of gender.

Maybe I am being insensitive to poor SpagMon though, it might he that s/he/it is merely another incarnation of that (obviously sadly troubled individual) on another thread who decided to tell a load of internet strangers about his sex change.

If that is you SpagMon please accept my sincere apologies... I will try to be more PC in future.

*I'm a soft-hearted type and I hate to think of someone in a back room somewhere sobbing over something I have said. I even have time for Bizarro: BTW: lets all be a bit nicer to him guys and help him get himself out of "Liberty" - he's not stupid and its a crying shame he's in there. More recommendations for further reading please, and less gratuitous insults...

Say what you want about Spaghetti Monster though...

1092. Manliness is next to godliness

Comment #49312 by Corylus on June 11, 2007 at 1:06 pm

Temporary Aura wrote

Doubtful these guys have ever read Rudyard Kipling's 'If'.

Yep: I doubt whether they have read another of his famous poems either "The Female of the Species"

When the Himalayan peasant meets the he-bear in his pride,
He shouts to scare the monster, who will often turn aside.
But the she-bear thus accosted rends the peasant tooth and nail.
For the female of the species is more deadly than the male….

I tell you, those guys will leave the toilet seat up just one too many times.

BTW – why is this such a hard thing to do?? Huh? Huh? Well?

Sheer bloody laziness!! That's what it is.

These men need to experience the following...

Imagine going on an agreeable night out. You come back somewhat tipsy and pleasantly tired from shaking your funky stuff (maybe you are getting a bit old for such things now and don't have the stamina you once had). Now you sit down unthinkingly in your powder room. Just for a moment you understand; in order take off your dancing boots. Suddenly you find yourselves sitting way further down the lavatory than is natural and with your face next to a toilet seat with yellow stains on it.

Not nice is it? Put the seat down gents. I tell you this for your own good.

1093. Dobson and John MacArthur fantasize about the downfall of America

Comment #49018 by Corylus on June 10, 2007 at 2:52 am

Dobson and John MacArthur fantasize about the downfall of America.

Huh? Why would fine, upstanding male preachers talking about lesbian sex involve an element of fantasy??

Josh, you're a bad boy, and you deserve to be punished… In whichever fashion you most enjoy ;)

1094. Teaching assistant quit in protest at Harry Potter

Comment #48870 by Corylus on June 9, 2007 at 9:12 am

Well, I have to 'fess up here. I love Harry Potter and I feel no shame. RDnet is getting no comments out of me for a few days when that last book comes out. I'm reading!

I do take peoples point, though that we should take this opportunity to lobby for children to have a wide range of pagan/wiccan/ subversive literature to hand, rather than just Rowling. Variety is the key.

I myself am voting for Susan Cooper's The Dark is Rising sequence and Ursula LeGuin's Earthsea books.

1095. Can we really learn to love people who aren't like us?

Comment #48800 by Corylus on June 9, 2007 at 4:53 am

Thanks for the feedback Logicel and Pewkatchoo

Pewkatchoo - feel free to quote :)

1096. Can we really learn to love people who aren't like us?

Comment #48765 by Corylus on June 9, 2007 at 2:44 am

The real battle, and it applies to secular and religious alike, is: can we love, not hate, the people not like us?

An honest question in response to world conflict, but I believe the heart of the problem is illuminated in the very words he uses.

"People not like us". Define, "not like us" please!

Are these differences racial? Well no one has given me a satisfactory explanation what as exactly 'race' constitutes – the whole business seems to be more of a continuum than a divide.

Are these differences geographical? Partly, but as the Rabbi points out the world is different now, people are mingling and the media means that we can view events from far away as soon as they happen.

Are these differences ideological/religious? Certainly, but ideological and religious differences are in the main the product of upbringing. Ideologies can be changed, or why would we bother with debate? Conversions happen every day. This is not then an essential difference.

In fact, I do not think that there are any intrinsic differences: we are all the same. Therein lies the problem.

The rabbi is aware of the danger out-group hostility, but persists in using the language of difference all the while. When people of faith start talking about 'bridging gaps' and 'finding common ground' they are doubtless sincere; and I admire the effort made; but it often ends badly.

For example, they may start talking about having more in common with those that believe and those that don't. Great move! Or they may band together to protest that being told not to discriminate against homosexuals is 'against their conscience'. That's nice: "Lets band together in mutual solidarity and love: and decide who we both hate".

They need to give up this notion of 'difference'. However, in order to do this they must give up the idea of having exclusive access to truth's provided by God, the notion of "God's chosen people" has to go and the idea that some of us are hell bound and others saved really has to go.

This is not an easy thing to give up. The rabbi rightly states that we are tribal animals, but we are status animals too. 'Not like us' is a line we feed ourselves when we are feeling so insignificant and weak that we desire to look down upon others. We might be low, we say, but at least we are not them! We like to think that we are special, chosen, different. Nice daydream: give it up.

We can learn to love people who are not like us, but only when we realise that the differences we see are of our own making, and that in turn involves seeing that God is a creation of man and not the other way round. Until that realisation is made I am afraid that the Rabbi and his like are doomed to failure. Maybe, they will prove me wrong and bring the world together. Sometimes I like to be proved wrong. However, they have a long way to go…

1097. In Saudi Arabia, a view from behind the veil

Comment #48557 by Corylus on June 8, 2007 at 11:24 am

Disturbance

I do like your word 'fundgelicals'!

It has the economy of combining two groups with similar ideals. It also has the added advantage of sounding like something that a person would get from their doctor when they have picked up a "dodgy" infection. :)

1098. Religion and Child Abuse

Comment #48205 by Corylus on June 7, 2007 at 3:43 am

Biz

I cannot believe I have just spent some of my morning looking up circumcision articles for you, Bizarro! I am feeling queasy and my breakfast croissant is uneaten :(

You say that it does not effect pleasure, actually there is evidence to the contrary...

Here is a short article, from a reputable journal that you might find interesting. It is too late for you, but since you have expressed the desire to have children I thought I should post.

http://www.cirp.org/library/general/warren2/

If you have any sons, I do hope that you will give due thought as to whether or not this procedure is something that is really needed. Do some research beforehand and consider the old adage "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".

'Nuf said on that subject: I don't want to be put of my lunch as well as well as my breakfast.

Re moral judgements you state

I don't buy it. Morality becomes an arbitrary concept without God. If it is my gut feeling that I should torture infants for fun, based on your logic, could you argue with me?

Yes, of course I would argue with this, as would the philosopher I was alluding to (Hume) and I suspect you know this...

You have said elsewhere that you are studying philosophy as well as biology. Good. Ignore some of the close-minded comments on here that philosophy is a waste of time. Cooking 'junk' food is a waste of time, scratching your rear end is a waste of time, crochet is a waste of time: thinking never is.

If you haven't had a chance yet, do read Hume on morals, you will find that our reactions to children, our duty to care for them, and our desire to prevent them from suffering are actually quite key...

Happy reading Biz.

1099. Atheism is pretentious and cowardly

Comment #48081 by Corylus on June 6, 2007 at 1:52 pm

See now this is evidence for my long held theory that anti-theism (as well as atheism) is justified due to the fact that theists tend to make bad facial hair decisions.

OK, OK, correlation does not equate to causation (and there are some notable exceptions on both sides), but b*gger me, that's picture is unbelievably scary...

The God Squad meets the Village People. Arrh!

1100. Religion and Child Abuse

Comment #48059 by Corylus on June 6, 2007 at 12:44 pm

OK Biz, I can accept that you didn't realise that the author of the article was referring to both male and female circumcision.

However, I am afraid that I am not going to accept your flippant:

It has absolutely no relevance to Christianity however.

a) Are the moral questions that have relevance to Christianity the only ones capable of being asked? There are plenty of moral questions that are not relevant to Christianity; or at the very least there are questions that are not addressed in the bible. We live in a changing world with new technology and new problems. Do the 10 commandments involve the injunctions "Thou must not overtake on the inside lane" or "Downloading films is in infringement of copyright law"?

Silly examples, I give you, but my point is that in order to legislate in today's world we must look at why we make moral judgements and not rely on ancient texts. (You can try this if you wish, but it would involve ditching both your car and your computer and somehow I doubt you will be moving in with the Amish anytime soon)

b) Also, is Christianity the only world religion?

Methinks not on both counts.

You have spectacularly failed to answer my main question so I will repeat it…

You say that as a Christian it is a 'non-issue'. I do not agree. We, all of us, need to work out our moral viewpoints on different issues. You need to ask yourself, as a Christian, would you support the rights of members of other religions to subject their children to circumcision; when their only rationale is religious? Maybe just the boys? What about unnecessary surgery in general? These are very important questions Biz and religious assumptions lie at the bottom of them.

You don't like female circumcision, great! Top marks. Now tell me why. What would you say to a Muslim who says that it is part of his religion and his religion is based on 'reasonable faith'? What would you say to a Kantian inclined Muslim (an odd thought I know but bear with me!) who says that a world with all women circumcised would be a kingdom of ends to be wished?

Sorry Biz, moral reactions are based not on God's guidance, or 'reasonable faith' or 'objective morality' they are based on our guts. Reason is the slave of the passions, and a bloody good job too!

P.S. Yes I have heard of smeg and without wishing to be crude in reply… have you ever heard of soap?