1151. The Dawkins debate

Comment #70490 by Quine on September 15, 2007 at 5:47 pm

When Einstein made his first US tour the press kept asking him about his theory that only 12 people in the world could understand. Today that is still not most people by a long shot, but does include many beyond college physics majors. As time goes on, and explanations get better, concepts that seemed so complex in the past, work their way into the general understanding. It is upon the shoulders of those who do understand to develop and present those better explanations. I thank Richard Dawkins for sticking his neck out to do so.

1152. The Dawkins debate

Comment #70482 by Quine on September 15, 2007 at 5:23 pm

Better we adapt to our environment than insist it change. Cuz it won't. Take it from someone who knows something about cognitive development.

Our belief systems are our making, not the environment. If the above were generally true, we would still be worshiping Zeus, or even have the belief systems of Homo erectus. In fact, we change and our belief systems change with us.

I will give you that people who have hardened in their belief systems are the most difficult, and can only be chipped away at slowly. However, new people are born every day who are not yet hardened. Most young people go through a time of doubt, when access to real evidence and good reasoning makes a difference. We need to keep calling a made up god a made up god, even when it is being passed off as some kind of generic.

1153. The Dawkins debate

Comment #70475 by Quine on September 15, 2007 at 4:51 pm

Yes, you see exactly what happens when you let them use the name "God" (which automatically personifies) as the "Generic Monotheist God." This is why I keep dragging my conversions with theists back to "the Christian deity" or "the god God" when they say that to me.

(note: Elsewhere I have posted about the issue of Christians thinking they are monotheists when they act like polytheists. But that is yet another story.)

1154. The Dawkins debate

Comment #70470 by Quine on September 15, 2007 at 4:25 pm

We're going to need a second wave movement that incorporates the agnostics. Perhaps "nonbelievers."

In the past I have used "nonbeliever" but now tend to use "not a person-of-faith" because belief also covers things that are subject to revision based on future evidence such as the theory of punctuated equilibrium.

It is also hard to get people to understand that just because I can't disprove the supernatural it is not inconsistent to be a "hard atheist" with regard to the god Zeus, the god Jehovah, the god Krishna, the god God, or the god (insert your favorite here). These, and all the others I know about, can be shown to be unreasonable based on the characteristics assigned to them by their followers.

1155. The Dawkins debate

Comment #70433 by Quine on September 15, 2007 at 12:53 pm

Spending some time actually reading up on the issues and background to the bible would help ...

Yes, if only "Bible Study" really meant looking into the historical writing and merging of preexisting mythologies. But, sadly, no.

1156. Open letter to YouTube video

Comment #70428 by Quine on September 15, 2007 at 12:17 pm

I am not too happy about rap, but that is a channel that needs to be used to get the message to those who really need to hear it. This one is very good. Listen to the words carefully, it is the media and the message.

1157. Alex the Parrot

Comment #69790 by Quine on September 12, 2007 at 7:51 pm

I was very sorry to see this news. A couple of years ago a friend got an African Grey and I ended up taking care of him (the bird) often. We were following the research on Alex. It is very hard to describe the feeling you get from one of these. True or not, the impression that someone is "in there" is very strong. What they can do with a brain the size of a walnut is astounding.

1158. Censoring Sir David

Comment #69715 by Quine on September 12, 2007 at 10:52 am

This is how it slips away ...

1159. The Emptiness of Theology

Comment #69287 by Quine on September 10, 2007 at 10:16 am

platitudinously obvious

Wonderful phrase.

1160. Interview with Francis Collins

Comment #69286 by Quine on September 10, 2007 at 10:00 am

Point of Inquiry isn't about pinning people down and making them uncomfortable.

Yes, this is true, and is a good thing when they are talking to most religious folks who just do not know any better. I contend that Dr. Collins is a very special case of someone who uses his position as one of the world's great scientists to provide a 'reasoned' basis for his faith. Asking him pointed logical questions is not like browbeating the local reverend.

Dr. Collins needs to be asked questions like what is the origin of the "soul" in the continuous development of the species, and why other animals who have demonstrated self awareness do not have this. And when does this soul show up in the development of an embryo? If it is at conception, what about the huge rate of embryos that do not attach, and thus are spontaneously aborted, unnoticed?

Someone with the medical knowledge of Dr. Collins can be asked about how memory is encoded in the brain, and how damage there, or chemical interference can rob someone of this. If someone can exist in an afterlife when the total brain is gone, what are you without any memories?

Then there is the whole subject of brain chemistry v. morality. Are some doomed to hell because they can't get access to needed medication? What if we find that belief in the supernatural is facilitated by a specific neurotransmitter?

Yes, I have have a special dislike for what Dr. Collins says, and still contend that in his case we should take the intellectual gloves off and go at it.

1161. Interview with Francis Collins

Comment #69180 by Quine on September 9, 2007 at 10:26 pm

info@djgrothe.com should get it to him

1162. Interview with Francis Collins

Comment #69177 by Quine on September 9, 2007 at 10:00 pm

82abhilash,

Thanks. I encourage you to email that Feynman quote to D.J. Grothe, and while you are at it, ask why he did not pin Collins down about how come the Christian deity is the exclusive choice for what D.J. kept calling "God."

[Edit: see my forum post on Collins back in Dec. '07
http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=11638&p=162275&hilit=#p162275
]

1163. Interview with Francis Collins

Comment #69167 by Quine on September 9, 2007 at 9:09 pm

I read Collin's book. It had one good thing going for it. He tells other religious folks that evolution is real, so just get over it.

The rest is bunk. He says he thought religion was bunk back when he was an unexamined Atheist. He should have been asked if he now thinks other folk's religion (not Christians) is still bunk.

He also erroneously claims science has faith that nature is run by simple equations. We hope it turns out that way, but there is no faith or guarantee that nature is simple enough for us to ever completely model.

1164. Bible Belter

Comment #68563 by Quine on September 7, 2007 at 3:49 pm

I wanted to agree with the poster regarding the capitalization of the word god. It's important to not assign authority to the construct as a result of capitalizing its name.

Some time ago, I started a Forum thread for this at:

http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=8827&p=115418&hilit=#p115418

1165. Honest Mistakes or Willful Mendacity

Comment #68512 by Quine on September 7, 2007 at 11:29 am

The debate about religion encompasses so many people of different cultures, ages, and levels of economic and educational backgrounds that no "one size" of argument or style of personal persuasion is going to "fit all." Instead, there is an ecology of discussion that has many ecological niches. Some present evidence from science about the cosmos and how our brains evolved and work. Some present anthropological theories about the development of belief systems in cultural context. Some work with the reason of logic and philosophy. Some argue against superstition and debunk charlatans and hypocrites. Some try to work from within to expand tolerance and understanding. There are many ways, including some room for those who just make stink (thankfully, we only have a few of those).

It is often said that you cannot change minds by just presenting facts. Although there is some truth to this, as I said above, there is a place for this. Sometimes you don't have to change minds, you just need to prevent minds from locking up in an uninformed state. Presenting facts to young people before they have made up their minds has a much bigger effect than after. (An ounce of prevention is worth ...)

Given the subject is religion, it is natural for people to use religious metaphors. Thus we have folks talking about "converting" people to Atheism as if it were a belief system. The point is that it is not a belief system, but rather, the lack of a belief system. Further, Atheists do not get points, or a higher position, in the "next life" for bringing in "converts." Although there is in most of us an empathetic concern to help educate humanity, primarily, Atheists just want the religious to stop inflicting the consequences of their superstitions on us, and other innocent bystanders. This sets up an intrinsic asymmetry that partially answers the question "If religion is wrong, why have we had it so long?"

There is no good reason to have a central voice, person, or style in this discussion. It is an ecology, let us each go after a niche.

1166. Bible Belter

Comment #68314 by Quine on September 6, 2007 at 7:29 pm

You noticed, I presume, that keith uses a picture of Reggie as his av. see:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-973788168455826237&q=Leonard+Rossiter&total=58&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=7

The "beige suit" pretty much gave it away for me.

1167. Bible Belter

Comment #68235 by Quine on September 6, 2007 at 12:59 pm

Picking the capitalization of the generic "god" for the proper name of their deity was a master stroke of propaganda because it allowed them to slide their theology (i.e. future mythology) under the edge of orthographical correctness. When I refer to the god Zeus, I do the orthographical correctness thing. You can see what they have achieved when you try to write "I would do the same thing if I referred to the god God." The capital "G" mind trick substantially tilts the playing field.

I am not suggesting insulting Christians, or anyone else. I am suggesting we look to our language, and what we do not realize we are buying into. I strongly suggest you refer to the Christian deity as "the Christian deity" although I know it is much more work to type.

Also, it helps to keep in mind that the Christian religion has three main deities, a goddess, and several levels of demigods and non corporal assistant beings to keep track of. Perhaps I should change my position and start using "the Christian deities."

1168. Bible Belter

Comment #68219 by Quine on September 6, 2007 at 11:57 am

I am glad to see that "RD" has cut down the number of times he uses the capital "G" god term in his writing. I wish he would drop it altogether because it tends to instantiate the very thing he doesn't think exits. This has a unconscious dissidence effect on the reader.

Here is an example:

But Hitchens is surely right to despise leaders of other religions who, while under no threat, go out of their way to volunteer a gratuitous "respect" and "sympathy" for those who incite murder in the name of God.

What if he had written:

But Hitchens is surely right to despise leaders of other religions who, while under no threat, go out of their way to volunteer a gratuitous "respect" and "sympathy" for those who incite murder in the name of someone's deity.

Or better yet: "someone's made up deity"

I encourage all to drop the capital "G" deity so your readers will get the real message.

1169. The Atheist

Comment #68052 by Quine on September 5, 2007 at 9:37 pm

Back then, I think we were holding our breath waiting for TGD.

1170. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #68008 by Quine on September 5, 2007 at 3:08 pm

It may be just a coincidence, but about a month ago a couple of J.W. missionaries knocked on my door and proceeded to try to use this old flat Tyre prophecy on me. I think it is one of these things that keep coming up in waves as new people grow up not knowing it is bogus.

1171. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #67992 by Quine on September 5, 2007 at 2:16 pm

Here is part of the debunking from the page I listed:

Some bibliolaters have tried to mitigate the failure of Ezekiel's Tyre prophecy by extending its scope beyond Nebuchadnezzar to Alexander the Great, who did succeed in capturing the island part of Tyre in 332 B.C. But this ploy won't work. Ezekiel clearly identified Nebuchadnezzar as the avenging instrument that Yahweh would use to bring about a total, everlasting destruction of Tyre. If Alexander the Great was to be a part of the scenario, why didn't Ezekiel name him too? After all, Ezekiel was a prophet, and prophets can see into the future, can't they? Inerrantists delight in pointing to 1 Kings 13:2 where a prophet allegedly mentioned Josiah by name almost 300 years before he was born and to Isaiah's alleged references to Cyrus by name over 100 years before he was born, so if Ezekiel had meant for his Tyre prophecy to include Alexander the Great as Yahweh's instrument of destruction, why didn't he refer to him by name? If other "prophets of God" could pull off amazing feats like these, why couldn't Ezekiel? Why would the predictive talents of one inspired prophet of God have been so consummately inferior to others'?

Even if bibliolaters could somehow prove that Ezekiel had intended Alexander the Great to be a part of the prophecy against Tyre, they would still have to explain why the complete and everlasting destruction of the city did not happen as predicted. Most assuredly, nothing comparable to the scope of destruction predicted occurred at the hands of Nebuchadnezzar, and although Alexander the Great did succeed in capturing the island part of the city, Tyre by no means ceased to exist after this conquest. In The History of Tyre, Wallace B. Fleming said this of the city's defeat by Alexander:

Alexander then left the city which was half burnt, ruined, and almost depopulated. The blackened forms of two thousand crucified soldiers bore ghastly witness to the completeness of the conquest. The siege had lasted from the middle of January till the middle of July, 332 B.C. The city did not lie in ruins long. Colonists were imported and citizens who had escaped returned. The energy of these with the advantage of the site, in a few years raised the city to wealth and leadership again (Columbia University Press: New York, 1915, p. 64, emphasis added).

So Ezekiel predicted that Tyre would "be no more forever," but, to the embarrassment of Bible inerrantists, it just didn't happen that way. Tyre existed after Ezekiel in the days of Jesus, who "withdrew into the parts of Tyre and Sidon" at one time during his personal ministry (Matt. 15:21), and it existed in the time of the Apostle Paul, who, returning from one of his missionary journeys, stopped there, found disciples, and tarried with them seven days (Acts 21:3). In fact, Tyre still exists today, as anyone able to read a map can verify. This obvious failure of a highly touted Old Testament prophet is just one more nail in the coffin of the Bible inerrancy doctrine.

1172. In God we doubt

Comment #67981 by Quine on September 5, 2007 at 2:01 pm

I took the trouble to read through the comments published after the piece, and most liked this one:

Fundamentalists: believe 2+2 =5 because It Is Written. Somewhere. They have a lot of trouble on their tax returns.

"Moderate" believers: live their lives on the basis that 2+2=4, but go regularly to church to be told that 2+2 once made 5, or will one day make 5, or in a very real and spiritual sense should make 5.

"Moderate" atheists: know that 2+2 =4 but think it impolite to say so too loudly as people who think 2+2=5 might be offended.

"Militant" atheists: "Oh for pity's sake. HERE. Two pebbles. Two more pebbles. FOUR pebbles. What is WRONG with you people?"

1173. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #67788 by Quine on September 4, 2007 at 7:29 pm

The flat Tyre prophecy has been debunked many times. There is a nice one about half way down the page
here.

1174. In God we doubt

Comment #67747 by Quine on September 4, 2007 at 3:41 pm

@ Northern Bright
I am sure you will, also, be dismayed at the recent conflation of both meanings for PR advantage by Ratzinger (Benedict XVI):
http://article.wn.com/view/2007/08/15/Pope_likens_materialism_to_dragon_of_evil/
and
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/world/view_article.php?article_id=82758

1175. In God we doubt

Comment #67519 by Quine on September 3, 2007 at 5:06 pm

@detox

Start asking your brother questions on behalf of your nephew about the meaning of religion. Be sure to ask from the voice of someone wanting to make sense of it all, not as a putdown. Keep asking. Remember you are being asked to be the intellectual stand in for you nephew, so do your job.

1176. In God we doubt

Comment #67489 by Quine on September 3, 2007 at 3:21 pm

@Northern Bright

Gregory Bateson famously observed that context is the difference that allows information to make a difference. Dictionary rankings can only assume a general context. I advise care with the term because the public often (sadly) does not know the philosophical context that is used by, say, Dennett and Harris.

IMHO it is an unfortunate accident of language that the generally pejorative term "materialistic" leaks over on anyone who admits to "materialism."

1177. In God we doubt

Comment #67465 by Quine on September 3, 2007 at 2:09 pm

@Northern Bright

(As a complete aside: it's become the norm for theists and agnostics to claim that atheism must result in materialism and that it is only faith that prevents us from valuing possessions too highly. I disagree: it seems to me that materialism is simply another form of displacement activity, designed to keep the mind off uncomfortable thoughts. In this respect, excessively materialistic people have more in common with the faithful than the faith-free, I would suggest. However, I digress, and in a post that's already shamelessly long.)

Please be careful with the term "materialism." It seems from your quote you were talking about what is sometimes called "economic materialism" which is characterized by being materialistic, as opposed to the general (from early philosophy) term meaning not believing in the supernatural. (see the defs at: http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/materialism.htm )

This usage problem does cause trouble because an atheist is usually a materialist but (as you pointed out) may or may not be materialistic.

I do know some folks who do not except the materialist position that there is nothing beyond the material world, but are none the less atheist as they also do not believe in any kind of deity.

1178. In God we doubt

Comment #67432 by Quine on September 3, 2007 at 12:18 pm

I enjoyed several things from this piece by John Humphrys. First, the big question from Pascal is one of the great stoppers from all of philosophy. You cannot find a answer to why you are here in this place, at this now, from your view looking out. You can, however, notice that from the view of the unfolding universe, someone has to be at each place (where someone is), at each then, to have that view looking out.

I liked the "comfort blanket" idea. There must be some brain chemical and/or neural pathway for this. The need for this "little bit of satin at the edge" can cause panic attacks in many children. We generally grow out of this (new paths in the brain override it), but it surely brings up the image of Frances Collins looking at his frozen waterfall.

Everyone knows it is folly to try to tell Mike why he should not be in love with Mary. If I do tell him what is wrong with Mary, I will not be shocked that he thinks I am arrogant and offensive. However, the bad result (to me) of their love will not (usually) be much worse than loosing Mike to Mary's social group that does not like me. But if Mike converts to a religion that makes him think it is noble to kill people like me, that is a problem.

The unique potential of humans is to use our minds to transcend our genes. That is not going to happen if we cannot use our minds to transcend religion first.

1179. Review of Darwin's Angel: An Angelic Response to the God Delusion

Comment #67065 by Quine on September 1, 2007 at 4:34 pm

There is a rather nice page on the history of angels at http://www.feedback.nildram.co.uk/richardebbs/essays/angels.htm

When the OT scriptures were written, the angel mythology was in place thanks (but not entirely) to Zoroastrianism from Persia. That is why you do not see it spelled out; they already knew the structure of the 'next world' and the personification of good and evil. Most Christians do not know about this at all.

1180. Review of Darwin's Angel: An Angelic Response to the God Delusion

Comment #66874 by Quine on August 31, 2007 at 10:25 pm

In the time of Socrates, theologians studied Zeus and Athena. Today the difference between a professor of theology and a professor of mythology is that the professor of mythology understands his/her subject is a branch of fiction.

1181. Review of Darwin's Angel: An Angelic Response to the God Delusion

Comment #66864 by Quine on August 31, 2007 at 9:47 pm

Paper bag on head for humanity.

1182. Orthodox Call on Sinners To Give Chickens a Fairer Shake

Comment #66818 by Quine on August 31, 2007 at 4:21 pm

It continues to amaze me that all measure of idiocy is thrown out the window if something is part of someone's 'religion.'

1183. There is no God and Dawkins is his Prophet

Comment #66282 by Quine on August 29, 2007 at 3:20 pm

Again we see the attempt to use logic without regard to one of its fundamental principals: a false premise implies any conclusion.

The assumption of the existence (without evidence) of a supernatural power, provides the false premise upon which an argument, to any doctrine of choice, may be constructed. Most fundamentalists are at least honest enough to admit that they just believe what they have been told (read in scripture) to believe.

1184. God Bless Me, It's a Best-Seller!

Comment #64386 by Quine on August 19, 2007 at 10:26 pm

"Blessed are the cheese-makers."

Or any other manufacturers of dairy products.

1185. Don't eat at the Outback Steakhouse on Route 3...

Comment #59005 by Quine on July 26, 2007 at 11:33 pm

I wonder how many posts the guy had to scan to find this small example? He doesn't strike me as the kind who reads very quickly. Perhaps there is a group out there who have divided up the task. If so, some light might start to shine on some of the others.

1186. A Look at Regent University

Comment #46164 by Quine on May 30, 2007 at 12:28 pm

Absolute truth from a self-contradictory collection of iron age scribblings that have been imperfectly copied and translated over the centuries????? Frightening indeed.

1187. The Creation Museum: Prepare to believe

Comment #41071 by Quine on May 15, 2007 at 1:08 pm

I am very much looking forward to the opening of this muse'm just to see the scope of the PR laughing stock it makes as it implodes.

1188. Unholy row at clergy soccer game

Comment #38079 by Quine on May 6, 2007 at 11:26 pm

I'd be laughing too, if the whole subject wasn't so sad.

1189. Was Muhammad Epileptic?

Comment #35196 by Quine on April 26, 2007 at 2:31 pm

Here is another Ramachandran video on the subject from 'Beyond Belief'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=raT2PrTQqS0&mode=related&search=

1190. Was Muhammad Epileptic?

Comment #35191 by Quine on April 26, 2007 at 2:19 pm

There is a short two part video from V.S. Ramachandran about the religious experience of temporal epilepsy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIiIsDIkDtg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5z4B5BYbjf8&mode=related&search=

After watching these, the origin of scripture is easy to envision.

1191. Nisbet and Mooney in the WaPo: snake oil for the snake oil salesmen

Comment #31915 by Quine on April 15, 2007 at 12:14 am

Just keep speaking the truth; don't look back.

1192. T. rex tissue shows they are related to chickens

Comment #31465 by Quine on April 12, 2007 at 8:21 pm

I'll bet dino hunters are out searching the bird genome even as we speak (type).

1193. E.O. Wilson Accepts his 2007 TED Prize

Comment #30778 by Quine on April 9, 2007 at 6:49 pm

Thank you, Tridhos, for that Wilson and Watson link; it was terrific! I was very moved by Watson's question at the end as to how to make a just world on top of unjust genetics.

1194. Answers To the Atheists

Comment #30301 by Quine on April 7, 2007 at 1:05 pm

Every Easter I give it a rest
And sit back for perspective
With "Life of Brian" I can test
The religious so subjective

1195. The God Debate

Comment #30085 by Quine on April 7, 2007 at 12:05 am

Here is a great video where Dan Dennett goes after Warren's book:

http://ted.com/tedtalks/tedtalksplayer.cfm?key=d_dennett

1196. The God Debate

Comment #29603 by Quine on April 3, 2007 at 2:38 pm

There is a nice thread over on Sam's board for folks to talk about what was the kicker.

http://www.samharris.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1578&start=0

These are arguments that stick to people. If Sam would rattle these off in the middle of public debate, they may not win the case, but the ideas would go home.

1197. The Selfish Green

Comment #29435 by Quine on April 2, 2007 at 11:49 pm

Veronique,

I am sad to agree.

1198. The Selfish Green

Comment #29424 by Quine on April 2, 2007 at 10:33 pm

This reminds me of the example of Easter Island (Rapa Nui). History has shown what happens to a people who deplete their environment while focused on religion. Over the years I have wondered how this may avoided on a global scale. All should know the story:
http://www.primitivism.com/easter-island.htm

1199. Religion useless to Dawkins

Comment #29330 by Quine on April 2, 2007 at 3:07 pm

Didn't it sound a bit like, "My editor made me do this story so, please Lord, don't put cracks in the bottom of my pool"?

1200. The God Debate

Comment #29126 by Quine on April 1, 2007 at 6:30 pm

There is a nice coverage of Pascal's Wager at:
http://www.iep.utm.edu/p/pasc-wag.htm

I like to point out to folks who use this argument that it leads to a religious arms race. The winner is the religion that can dream up the very best heaven, and the very worst hell. I choose to measure my truth by the veracity of evidence, and not by the scope of fiction.