1151. 'The Day They Kicked God out of the Schools' & Rebuttal

Comment #34212 by Corylus on April 23, 2007 at 2:10 pm

Good answer Kroger.

I do think though that we should all ignore Bizarro on this. For those that do not know him of old he is a student of Lynchburg University (yes of the Falwell fame).

One can see him in full technocolour glory on the following link (he put some questions to Dawkins at the Q and A session at the end):

http://richarddawkins.net/article,303,Reading-of-The-God-Delusion-in-Lynchburg-VA,Richard-Dawkins--C-SPAN2

RD made him look a brainless idiot and he has been stalking this site ever since.

I did feel sorry for him as he is not stupid and obviously has a promising brain. Aha, I thought, indoctrinated by Falwell, cut him some slack. Unfortunately, he appears to have graduated to the full self-satisfied, self-righteous smugness of his mentor. Sometimes there is no hope. Enough said.

BTW: I have just noticed on the afa video that this piece of tosh is 'available for purchase' Why?? Two possibilities:

1) So one can enjoy it in the privacy of one's own home, glorifying in the sense of one's own moral rectitude... possibly with a box of tissues close to hand?

or

2) To show to children.

Frankly, I do not know which scenario I find more disturbing.

P.S. If anyone wants to accuse me of being crass and unfair to Bizarro, fine. But, please, first look at his comments on this site. The child is not kind.

1152. 'The Day They Kicked God out of the Schools' & Rebuttal

Comment #34155 by Corylus on April 23, 2007 at 11:41 am

Brian
You know what this means? You are now a director :)

Well done, I wouldn't have the first clue how to put that together.

1153. Atheists split on how to not believe

Comment #33984 by Corylus on April 23, 2007 at 12:56 am

Have to agree with others here that PZ's response to 'soft' atheists is a good read.

BTW: The 'aim to misbehave' title is a quote from the film 'Serenity' which is alot of fun and well worth watching. As is the original 'Firefly' series... sorry... geek moment :)

1154. NEXT MONDAY: Bill O'Reilly interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #33667 by Corylus on April 21, 2007 at 2:25 am

Please, please, Josh when the interview is done can you take Bill's mugshot off the website STRAIGHT AWAY!

It's making me feel somewhat queasy....

Cheers :)

1155. Flea Circus!

Comment #32997 by Corylus on April 19, 2007 at 1:15 am

Poor Dan Dennett - he must be feeling so left out :(

Come on theologians: take on the atheist Dumbledore if you dare!

Russell - loved your titles.

1156. Sam's Flea!

Comment #32667 by Corylus on April 18, 2007 at 1:00 am

Anyone going to be getting a copy? I admit curiosity but I'm hesitant to spend money on it for fear it is just the usual tripe.

I really understand where you are coming from here - you want to be intellectually fair and read before you criticise, but you do not want to put money in these people's pockets...

N.B. British readers might like to know that WHSmith has a big '3 books for the price of 2' promotion on at the moment and 'The Dawkins Delusion' is one of those books featured ;-)

It may be that this cuts down on all author's profits or maybe the retailer covers the costs?? I don't know, but I must admit getting this book for 'free' the other day gave me an inordinate amount of pleasure.

1157. Atheism isn't the final word

Comment #32383 by Corylus on April 17, 2007 at 1:27 am

Good letter Veronique!

1158. Atheism isn't the final word

Comment #32362 by Corylus on April 17, 2007 at 12:24 am

"What would a world with God look like?" Umm.. pretty much like this one actually.

I agree with Spinoza here, these people would do well to read some philosophy.

This brings me to another point. I am noticing when these people list the so called "atheist tracts" they have a tendency to miss out dear old Dennett.

Is it because they do not bother to read him? Possible. Or is it a tactical decision because he is harder to misrepresent? I have my suspicions.

1159. Against God

Comment #32083 by Corylus on April 15, 2007 at 2:12 pm

Cheshire Cat

If you has been paying attention to Fonex's posts you would know that s/he goes to church because s/he lives in country and within a family environment in which no choice is given. You might wish to remember that not all contributors here have the have the luck to be posting from the UK, or are old enough and affluent enough to be able to change their environment.

This brings me to another point.

I asked you a question recently, but it appears that the thread has died on that article and you did not see it. Therefore, I ask again…

You're obviously well read. Your posts are sometimes funny and couched in technically correct English grammar. You don't believe in God, but you do seem to go for the whole 'belief in belief' deal – i.e. liking nice churches and well meaning believers. You know your bible, your theologians and your John Donne, and you read the Telegraph. Plus you do occasionally come across (I'm sure unintentionally!) as a tad pompous and now your recent fury over 'anti-clericalism'…

I am not being mean or sarcastic here, but I really have to ask.

Are you an Anglican vicar?? Maybe trained to be one and became disillusioned?? Please: share!

Frankly, I am beginning to find your posts incomprehensible and I really want to understand.

Thank you.

1160. Thanks for the Facts. Now Sell Them.

Comment #31955 by Corylus on April 15, 2007 at 3:36 am

Hmm, two possible criticisms of this article spring to mind. Ones that maybe not everyone here will with agree with, but I'll put them forward anyway.

Anti-American?
I agree, Johan, I find myself wondering what the writers of this article really think about the vast majority of the American public. For example:

The fact remains: The public cannot be expected to differentiate between his advocacy of evolution and his atheism.

In other words the American public are inherently stupid….

Scientists have traditionally communicated with the rest of us by inundating the public with facts; but data dumps often don't work. People generally make up their minds by studying more subtle, less rational factors.

Completely irrational and incapable of weighing up and assessing sometimes conflicting evidence…

In 2000 Americans didn't pore over explanations of President Bush's policies; they asked whether he was the kind of guy they wanted to have a beer with.

Parochial….

…even as business leaders can speak to fiscally oriented conservatives about the economic opportunities there for the plucking if Congress passes a system for trading carbon dioxide emission credits.

Only interested in policies because they increase their income rather than because they actually help people, in other words…. completely venal.

This article seems for fall for every mistaken, pernicious, invidious stereotype about Americans going, and was yet apparently written by Americans. If a European had written this there would be screams from the rooftops.

Elitist?
The more responses of this type in the, supposedly, left-wing media I see the more darkly suspicious I become. (I am thinking mainly here in relation to the recent Guardian articles against Dawkins: the average Guardian reader wouldn't know proper left-wing if it bit them on the rear end.)

There appears to be continued criticism for Dawkins et al, not in terms the factual validity of their position, but instead, criticism of the people they address and the manner in which they address them.

There is a sly sotto voce aside to people like Dawkins, "Yes, old chap, we know you're right, but don't tell the masses: they will only get upset and misunderstand". When these people are ignored; as they should be; accusations of 'populism' and 'dumbing-down' abound.

I am beginning to suspect that a great deal of this type of criticism has little to do with religion and a lot to do with intellectual snobbery. When people attempt to educate others outside of a school or college environment they assume that education of the general public is worthwhile, that people without academic or journalistic jobs are not inherently stupid.

It may actually be that some people with menial jobs are just as smart as some members of the middle-class intelligensia. Also, (and much more terrifyingly!) it may be some members of the middle-class intelligensia may be just as dumb as those with menial jobs. No wonder Dawkins and PZ attract such hostility when they consider such possibilities as these.

Now, I do not want to come across as a simplistic, idealistic pinko here. Of course, people progress in life because of being clever and, of course some people are just smarter than others. What I do say that there are a lot of clever people in the world who have not progressed not because of lack of intelligence, but because of lack of opportunity and lack of access to education.

I think it is amazing when people like Dawkins and PZ make an effort to teach things. I firmly believe that education reaps rewards and that humans as a group can learn and progress, it is one of the few things about which I am optimistic and I am not about to give up that optimism.

Sorry for the long post people … got carried away, but I caught the whiff of patronising paternalism and, as always, it stunk!

1161. Then Call it God

Comment #31800 by Corylus on April 14, 2007 at 10:56 am

Cheshire Cat

You intrigue me!

You're obviously well read. Your posts are sometimes funny and couched in technically correct English grammar. You don't believe in God, but you do seem to go for the whole 'belief in belief' deal – i.e. liking nice churches and well meaning believers. You know your bible, your theologians and your John Donne, and you read the Telegraph. Plus you do occasionally come across (I'm sure unintentionally!) as a tad pompous. Now your fury over 'anti-clericalism'…

I am not being mean or sarcastic here, but I really have to ask… Are you an Anglican vicar??

1162. Answers To the Atheists

Comment #31720 by Corylus on April 14, 2007 at 2:05 am

Dr Benway

Don't worry no tomatoes here: I prefer to eat them rather than throw them… yum.

I understand and agree with your point that 'geek' skills are needed right now: the world has a lot of problems, not least huge environmental issues. However, I do think that the automatic linking of geekiness and lack of emotional response to atheism doesn't really tell the full story.

This is because it ignores the whole Humanist tradition: one of empathy and care. Also, it ignores the fact that many, many believers lose their faith due to finding the problem of evil insuperable. How can a benevolent God do nothing in the face of evil actions against innocents? The recent school shootings at Beslan in Russia and in the Amish school in America have caused particular reflection.

This is where theologians would start talking about 'theodicy' the doctrine that God allows these actions in order to 'test our faith' or to 'allow us to grow and develop'. Well, this is one test I am happy to fail, thank you! Religious people often ask "What would you do I you're wrong and find yourself facing God when you die?" The implication, of course being, that I would be grovelling and begging forgiveness, my answer? "Well, if he does exist he has some explaining to do and I would welcome the opportunity to give him a piece of my mind."

Now, some people will be saying here that surely empathy is the result of evolutionary programming and finding actions against children particularly vile is a prime example of this. Totally agree! Does this make moral judgements based on empathy invalid? No. In what way does understanding something, and explaining something take away its practical use?

My point? Atheists aren't just emotionally stunted nerds, there are plenty of touchy-feely hippies in their midst too. Sleep well Doc :)

1163. The God Delusion is one of the Ten Best Audiobooks

Comment #31589 by Corylus on April 13, 2007 at 11:41 am

KarlJ
Somewhat harsh! Don't forget these books are good for more than just lazy non-thinkers. People with visual problems or intelligent dyslexics spring to mind. They also help schoolchildren get through classics with considerably less pain - especially turgid Dickens classics (no suprises that there is one of those on the list).

Personally, though, I like them because I can get through them while travelling to and from work; without straining my eyes with a jolting book on a train or causing a crash in my car.

Dr Benway
Looks like you are getting through enough books on your own without needing recommendations.. Word of advice though, no D.H.Lawrence, his prose is fine in text, but read out load.. NO. I'm afraid it only inspires helpless childish sniggering in me. You don't look good on public transport when you do that...

1164. Einstein & Faith

Comment #31585 by Corylus on April 13, 2007 at 11:14 am

Comment 31515

Brian
You're getting good at this youtube stuff: don't let anyone tell you different :-)

1165. Einstein & Faith

Comment #31499 by Corylus on April 13, 2007 at 2:02 am

Poor old Einstein... you just can't please everyone can you?? :-)

1166. The Great British Literary Census

Comment #31494 by Corylus on April 13, 2007 at 1:23 am

Nice to see TGD in there. A brilliant contrast to that dreadful "Alchemist" book that turns up in just about every "best books" list I've seen.

BTW: For those who haven't read Coelho's masterpiece it is a thinly veiled religious tract. It also contains the dubious conclusion that only spiritual journeys are worth taking and that you can find happiness in your own back yard. In other words: be grateful for what you have... nevermind if your a poor peasant.(Don't bother! Self-indulgent drivel.)

My recommendations from this list:

Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell - Suzanna Clark. Impossible to clasify: elements of fantasy, social commentary, amazing erudition. (Nearly 800 pages, now that's a tome!) A world in itself, quite astonishing.

A Short History of Nearly Everything - Bill Bryson. Amazingly informative and funny at the same time.

Artemis Fowl - Eoin Colfer. Nice childish, escapist fun.

All in all, an amazing list. Well done RD for getting on it!

1167. Hey Mom, I'm an Atheist

Comment #30941 by Corylus on April 10, 2007 at 12:02 pm

This is comparatively mild. Before we all feel especially singled out for vilification here it is important to remember that Christians are capable of spectacularly throwing their toys out of the pram over paganism too. I post a link to a famous video apparently from American wife swap (not the sort of program I tend to view, so I take YouTube's word for it). This is what happens when a fundamentalist Christian spends time in a pagan house.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCODIhAXbQM&mode=related&search=


P.S. I loved the bit at the very end when it became evident that "God's Warrior" had decided, upon reflection, to cast off her "spiritual armour" and take the money …. Maybe it didn't fit??

1168. Charles in Space! American tourist floats into space station

Comment #30807 by Corylus on April 10, 2007 at 12:04 am

Hurray! Some cheerful stories after all of that self-indulgent Easter drivel.

Charles: thanks for making me feel infinitely less guilty over my intent to spend some money (that I can't afford) on my holiday this year. I can now tell myself it is but the tiniest fraction of what you paid. Hope you enjoy yourself :-)

1169. How to defend your faith with an electric wheelchair

Comment #30394 by Corylus on April 8, 2007 at 1:48 am

Wow, I do hope it was not one of these!

http://www.tankchair.com/default.htm

Before anyone accuses me of mocking the disabled – I got sent this link by a disabled pal who thinks they are cool and wants one. If I ever come into lots of money she'll get her wish. She is a pagan hippie for I have no fears about her getting arrested. Thinking about it though… she really doesn't like fundies… maybe I should reconsider?

1170. Militant atheists: too clever for their own good

Comment #30111 by Corylus on April 7, 2007 at 1:49 am

Eamonn

Gender defined personality differences affecting religiousity? My first reaction would be to go 'no!'

But, if the figures bear this out, then is an interesting point, and needs to be investigated coldly and calmly.

I would suggest that while, as you rightly point out, there is equal educational opportunities for males and female in the UK, there still remains a difference in terms of social conditioning.

Women are still told that they are more kind and polite than males and that is a virtue.

So it might well be that some women (not me: I consider honesty a bigger virtue than politenes!) do not explicitly reject religion when questioned because they do not want to appear arrogant and mean.

It is possible that women are not more naturally inclined to religion, there may just be a confounding variable at work in relation to the answers given when questioned.

1171. Militant atheists: too clever for their own good

Comment #30104 by Corylus on April 7, 2007 at 1:14 am

No-one has picked this up yet:

In fact, in all this I hear the voices of a university high table - and almost invariably male voices at that - proving something to their own satisfaction while other people cook the lunch.

The Victorian Prime Minister Lord Salisbury once criticised Roman Catholicism for being "an excellent religion for peasants and women". But what sort of a religion would it be which was not excellent for peasants or women (who made up about 90 per cent of the world's population in Salisbury's day)?

Nice correlation with atheism and sexism Mr Moore… Trouble with this theory though is I happen to be atheist and last time I checked I had tits. The reason that there are less female than male atheists worldwide is because of discrimination in terms of providing education. What is a common rationale for this? You guessed it religion: for what is the point of educating someone that God says is, by definition, intellectually, morally and physically inferior?

I also try not to swear (it is not ladylike after all!) However I have to say to Mr Moore "Sir, you are a complete and utter fuckwit".

1172. John Paul Sainthood Nun 'Gentle, Simple'

Comment #28588 by Corylus on March 30, 2007 at 2:20 am

Isn't it interesting that this is a miraculous, non-scientific 'cure' for a illness that stem cell research might help with??

This quite put me off my cornflakes this morning.

1173. The Fifth Flea!

Comment #28244 by Corylus on March 28, 2007 at 1:42 pm

Cheshire Cat

Wherein could this flea guilty be,
Except in that drop which it suck'd from thee?

John Donne is one of my favourite poets, please do not demean his beautiful, sensual poem 'The Flea' by quoting it in this context.

The relationship between Dawkins and these other authors has no relevance to love poetry.

P.S. Yes, I know Donne was a religious man, but he was a child of his time.

1174. The many forms of fundamentalism

Comment #27665 by Corylus on March 26, 2007 at 3:49 am

Grey Wizard

I really do understand where you are coming from. The whole thing does indeed make no sense whatsoever!

Breaking things down, I would say the whole 'enlightenment questioning itself' argument is put forward by two different types of people.

1) Those that do not understand the Enlightenment, which (as you rightly point out) was about questioning. This is common amongst young people given a little learning by inept teachers.

2) Those who do understand the Enlightenment, but take issue with its' central tenet: that of progress through questioning. (These are the scary ones). That is the real difference between Enlightenment questioning and post-modern questioning: the notion of progress. While the Enlightenment was about optimism, post modernism is about nihilism. (I am sure that some would accuse me of oversimplification here, but this is really as I see it).

So when these people talk about 'the enlightenment questioning itself' they are not questioning questioning. (If that makes sense!) What they are questioning is whether there is any point listening to the answers. They persist in questioning themselves though, because they do not know what else to do.

You are correct, it makes no sense: I am going to nail my colours to the mast here… Postmodernism is drivel. It is self-referential, nihilistic, relativistic, obscurantist hogwash. Unfortunately, it is fashionable and because of the long words and run on sentences used by its proponents, it appears much more profound than it actually is.

Rant over! I feel better for that. Thanks you giving me a chance to get on one of my favourite soapboxes. :-)

1175. Mormons miffed over coffee-swilling angel image

Comment #27581 by Corylus on March 25, 2007 at 12:41 pm

Scottish Geologist

Cool link! Now I see why women should wear skirts and men trousers/pants.

BTW: I do hope for the sake of your immortal soul that you are not sitting in front of your PC in a kilt. ;-)

1176. Mormons miffed over coffee-swilling angel image

Comment #27516 by Corylus on March 25, 2007 at 5:47 am

Ridelo

"Knickers" is an English word meaning underpants (particularly female ones) - so getting them twisted is not a good idea.

So yes, the phrase 'knickers in a twist' does mean getting upset and agitated. :-)

1177. The many forms of fundamentalism

Comment #27515 by Corylus on March 25, 2007 at 5:29 am

People are asking "What is postmodernism?" Tough one!

I hesitate to give an answer to this, as I am sure that there are others on here much more qualified, and it's been a while since I studied this :-).

What is Postmodernism?
In a nutshell, Postmodernism is characterised as a distrust of overarching claims to knowledge.

How did this arise?
Well, lots of debate on this one, I would say that it pretty much boils down to the soul-searching and disillusionment that took place after the hideous events of the two world wars. Optimism and certainty disappeared (particularly amongst the colonial nations of Europe). A pivotal moment appears to have been the Nuremberg Trials – how could these seemly sane educated men act in such a fashion? Could they even claim that they were acting in accordance with the Kantian Categorical Imperative?

There was also a growing realisation that the paternalistic meddling in the affairs of less developed nations that the West had indulged in for so long was coming home to roost. E.g. Did we get it all hideously wrong? Can it be that those in the West are the real 'savages'?

This, (admittedly totally justified!) questioning had wide ranging (and not always welcome) effects in a variety of fields.

Architecture
This is one of the earliest manifestations of postmodernism. E.g. "Lets build new and interesting buildings and forget the past." (N.B. This was also aided by the manufacture of new and exciting building materials).

Nothing wrong with this per se, but the irony is that is those architects who insist in 'thinking outside the box' often end up just building boxes.

History
There was a rejection of the understanding of history as a teleological discipline: sometimes things get better rather than worse! Very true, sometimes they do.

In terms of the implications of this, well, there was a rejection of Hegel (good plan). However, there was also a rejection of any idea of progress and pessimism with regard to societal change, e.g. Foucault's unrelentingly miserable histories (bad plan).

Politics
What are political theorists, but those with overarching claims? Gotta Go! This is shown in the flirtation with anarchism. Young post-modernists are good with this: they grow out of it when they realise, (that contrary their rose-tinted views) the general public does not just consist of suppressed noble savages eager to throw off the yoke of repression. There are also lots of low-life scum who will, without Police and the rule of law, happily steal your CD player and molest your pet gerbil.

BTW: Postmodernists with all their distrust of wide ranging claims still often show an unsupported and emotional attachment to Marx – something I happen to find quite amusing.

Philosophy (particularly of science)
Oh dear, this is where people on this board will get cross! One of the arguments for the Enlightenment being a good thing lies in the technological and scientific advances made, what if this is all wrong? What if science is non teleological too? Einstein comes along and messes with Newton, whatever is next!

What if there is no progress in scientific endeavour, but merely different changes of viewpoint? What if there are just 'paradigmatic shifts' (Kuhn) or 'epistemological breaks' (Bachelard).

This led to a rejection of Popper. Well, I do have a TINY but of sympathy here – I do reckon Popper can be a bit simplistic. Waits for bullets to fly ;-) However, this thinking can also lead to the most indescribable idiocy.

Firstly, there is a rejection of scientific 'truths'. There is an idea that while they have surface validity, science is just one of many different types of 'discourse'.

(RD makes the point that these are the very people who trust scientific truths when they fly in aeroplanes, and I have to agree).

Secondly, and just as dangerously, there is a tendency to assume that as; science is merely one type of discourse; its truths are interchangeable with those of other discourses. For example, Heisenberg as an argument for agnosticism, or worse, a proof of God. FFS!

Feminism
This is where I get cross, (I'm a girl so I'm allowed). It is pointed out that the whole Enlightenment business was a male endeavour (those women involved tend to get conveniently ignored). Science is a male endeavour; lets ignore it. (The women involved here get conveniently ignored too) In fact let's ignore men as well. Lets sit in a room, moan about male repression, but do absolutely nothing to agitate for equal rights and opportunities in all types of 'discourse' as this is a waste of time. Grrr... Daft cows!

Conclusion
I do seem to have gone on and ranted a bit… sorry!! But I guess my point is that post-modernism went from justified suspicion concerning the sweeping claims made by those in power to unjustified relativism, and it is very pervasive. It also has an annoying tendency to mess with young questioning minds and waste their time.

1178. The Salem Hypothesis

Comment #27236 by Corylus on March 23, 2007 at 3:55 pm

Baron,

Quick turnaround on the avatar change! But an equation? I was kind of hoping for a carrot.. or maybe.. a parsnip?

1179. The Salem Hypothesis

Comment #27224 by Corylus on March 23, 2007 at 3:31 pm

Wow – bit heated on all sides here. I hesitate to stick my head over the parapet here, but there is something that I would like some opinion on…

First, let me say that:

A) I do think that engineering is a science: building something and seeing whether or not it works sounds like a method of experimentation to me. (N.B. Dennett even goes further than this in "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" by suggesting that just as there is a field of 'Philosophy of Science' there should be a field of 'Philosophy of Engineering': I think this is a lovely notion).
B) I do not have a downer on engineers, in fact I would never have got to university but for the hard work of my 100% sane, agnostic, engineer father. I do not have enough personal experience of engineers to love or hate them as a bunch: but there is one that I love very much indeed and I won't have a word said against him.

Right, now I have put on my flak jacket, let me suggest a possible explanation for the Salem Hypothesis…

No one here has mentioned Asberger's Syndrome. This, as I am sure most of you know, this is a high functioning autistic spectrum disorder. It is characterized by an obsession with rules, pedantry, poor social communication and a desire for an ordered environment about oneself. (Made for creationists then!)

However, it is also often accompanied by a higher than average IQ and technical talent in such fields as mathematics, software design and ENGINEERING. Those interested can read more about it here:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asbergers

I am wondering this might account for the creationist/engineering link??

No, I am NOT saying that all engineers are mentally ill. Yorker, please don't tell me off :-) I would however be very interested if those on this board with experience or working with lots of engineers would scan the wiki link above and see whether there is anyone they recognize?

P.S. Baron Ochs: I am really tempted to ask 'what's with the big (is it an aubergine?) thing on your avatar, but maybe I don't wanna know ;-)

1180. Saving believers: Former Christian finds calling to preach the good news of atheism

Comment #26773 by Corylus on March 21, 2007 at 3:28 pm

Q: Bizarro in a few years??

Yep! I'm a glass half-full type!

1181. The Fourth Flea!

Comment #26771 by Corylus on March 21, 2007 at 3:12 pm

I try really hard to be hard to be fair and even-handed. So I really must give James Cornell a bit of credit here!

At least the cover art is not a rip off of TGD (unlike the other three fleas). It is completely different… Cheesy ... but different.

Also, I really do take on board the argument that one must not judge before the fact. However, I fully reserve the right to judge after it, plus, I must admit I will be reading with the famous words of Hume in mind:

"If we take into our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Consign it then to the flames: For it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion."

Before, anyone leaps on me for this, NO!! I am not advocating book burning, but DAMN, I love Hume.

If James Cornell passes this test, I will not only be very impressed: I will be very surprised.

1182. Lonely Atheists of the Global Village

Comment #26376 by Corylus on March 19, 2007 at 1:39 am

I read it all. (A bit like picking a scab really, you know it is going to end badly, but man you just can't help yourself!)

One thing made me smile, the argument that Christianity is the faster growing religion so it must be right. This was a bit rich from a catholic. Umm.. injunctions against contraception and abortion.. the words "cause" and "effect" spring to mind.

Comment by GoodbeGodNZ. Yep, the dyslexic atheist claims there is no dog, but that is not half as risky as the dyslexic devil worshiper who sold his soul to Santa ;-)

1183. What We Need More Of Is Science

Comment #25760 by Corylus on March 15, 2007 at 3:40 am

Linda

Just seen your link to the Charles Taylor article. I knew that the Templeton Prize was serious cash, but I didn't know it was $1.5 million!

B*gger me, with a bargepole sideways!!

1184. Richard Dawkins and the dangerous delusion of religion

Comment #25757 by Corylus on March 15, 2007 at 3:16 am

MMurray

You want an Orwellian book set in a fundamentalist future?

Really have to recommend "A Handmaid's Tale" by Margaret Atwood, here.

Man, it's depressing, but very good!

1185. Response to Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris

Comment #25655 by Corylus on March 14, 2007 at 2:38 pm

Richard H.

A brave and informative post. Thank you.

1186. For the God Question, a Biological Perspective

Comment #25643 by Corylus on March 14, 2007 at 12:59 pm

Frazier states:

"In a core chapter "'Why There Is Almost Certainly No God,"

Top marks! I reckon that this is an important acid test for any reader of TGD. When someone understands that this chapter is the heart of the book (and the most important argument in there) it indicates to me that they have:

a)read it
and
b)understood it.

(Alvin Plantinga notwithstanding)

P.S. Thanks Friend Giskard - I have printed out my very own dragon and am getting out my scissors and sticky tape now!

1187. In Lice, Clues to Human Origin and Attire

Comment #25488 by Corylus on March 13, 2007 at 4:54 pm

Why is it that the very mention of lice always makes you want to scratch?

Excuse me, I'm off for a bath!

1188. Response to Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris

Comment #25487 by Corylus on March 13, 2007 at 4:31 pm

Linux

Sorry for the slight delay in responding, I have been away from my PC a bit. You say:

"But I fail to see how religion is any worse than categorizing people based on clothing, money, looks, hair color, education, etc."

Well, that's a good question. How is judging people by their appearance different from judging them by their religion? I'd say it is different in two important ways.

1) It is so unnecessary.

We notice people's appearance because we are seeing animals. I am sure to an extent that it is vital for us to do this. How else can we recognise people we know from people we don't know? We notice people's skin and hair colour because that is an easy way to tell people apart. Noticing appearances is necessary for functioning in this world. I do not think that this human characteristic will ever go away.

However, we do not notice people's religion when we first see them. (Unless their clothing makes it really obvious). We only find out people's true religion when we talk to them. Do I need to know a person's religion before I recognise their face? Do I need to know a someone's religion before I decide whether or not I want them to be my friend? Of course not!

If I say that I do need to know that, I am adding another needless barrier between myself and others and missing out on worthwhile relationships.

Here you make the point that this:

"sounds like people aren't able to overcome differences and for this reason we should all think/act/look the same".

Am I then saying that it is impossible to overcome racism, and generally judging people by appearances?? ABSOLUTELY NOT.

We can still recognise people's physical differences, whilst working to abolish any negative connotations we may have been conditioned by society to associate with them. For example, we can work hard to be fair when employing people, we can make sure that our media shows positive examples of all races, we can make sure that everyone has a right to education and opportunities. In short we can fight it, and it is important that we fight it.

This brings me to the second reason that religious intolerance is different from racial intolerance:

2) It is so very, very hard to fight.

The reason that religious intolerance is so hard to fight is because it is a thread that runs through so many 'holy' books. Also, these are holy books that we are told we can never, ever, question.

When I first read a holy book (in my case the bible), I became really upset. This is because the only conclusion I could possibly draw from what I was reading was that God was a dreadful bigot. There was all this talk of killing people of different religions. Now God is supposed to have created everything and God is supposed to be perfect: how then could some of his creations be so imperfect as to deserve their dreadful fates? Didn't seem fair. I decided that this was simply not good enough and I stopped believing in God. (I have also have other found several other good reasons for not believing in the fields of philosophy, psychology and politics, but this was my very first reason).

Now there are religious people who try to build bridges between faiths (I am sure generally with the best of intentions – I try not to be overly cynical). They try to concentrate on similarities rather than differences. Trouble is when they do this they start thinking again in terms of categories and sets. It is the same old out-group hostility all over again. For example, many people in America say that they would refuse to vote for an atheist because different types of believers have more in common with each other than non-believers. This puts me in a minority and this scares me.

Also when religious people generally agree it is only when they decide upon a category that they can all deem 'the other'. A good recent example of this is when several religious groups got together to say that gay people should not be allowed to get married; that they should not be able to commit to each other and profess love in public. They said that this was 'offensive'. Now when people talk about love in public I sometimes find it moving, more often than not I just find it embarrassing (I'm English) What I have never found it to be is 'offensive'. I loathe this word. These people seem only to agree upon whom they should hate.

This is because there is a hideous conclusion at the heart of most religions. That is, those who follow all other religions are going to hell; even the children. Religious people who are kind try to ignore this conclusion and pretend that this is not the case. Religious people who are not so kind don't care; in fact some of them even glory in this thought.

This then is the difference between judging people by their appearance and judging them by their religion. Racism we can fight, because we can see that it is daft. Religious intolerance we can see is daft, but we are not allowed to fight it. This is because it comes from God, and God, by definition, is never, ever, wrong.

1189. Response to Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris

Comment #25323 by Corylus on March 12, 2007 at 5:07 am

Hi Linux

The question of what causes wars and what role religion has in it is a very tough question that I have struggled with and I am glad that you want to chat about. If you have got a minute I will give you my take on it.

One attribute of humans is that we like to put things into categories and sets, we start to do this at a very early age "This is a blue toy" vs. "This is a red toy" and then we go on to do this with people "This is a member of my family" vs. "This is not a member of my family". I guess we have to do this, for how else can we make sense of such a difficult world?

How we make these judgements is generally a visual thing (huge parts of our brains are devoted to seeing after all!) So we look at a person's appearance and put them into categories: black, white, Asian, male, female, etc. We then put them into sets; those that include us and those that do not include us. People can then be viewed as 'us' and them' or the 'me' and 'not me'. Some people have called how we view people not in our sets as 'The Other'. This helps me a lot.

Unfortunately, there is a point when putting people into categories stops being helpful and starts being harmful, this is when people get described not as the 'Other' but 'Only the Other' this is a terrible mistake to make. We can see this when we look at racism. People have realised this and try to overcome this tendency in them selves.

Some people say "I don't notice what race someone is: it is irrelevant to me". Well, when someone says that I know I am either listening to someone who is kidding themselves or someone who owns a guide dog! Judging people by appearances is part of being human and something that we all need to guard against. All we can do is to realise that these judgements are arbitrary and try not to let them effect our actions.

So how is religion relevant to this? You say that:

"Religion has nothing to do with it, and to think if religion vanished from mankind we would progress into some kind of higher life form is nothing more than a belief".

See, the problem with religion is that it is another way of putting people into categories, yet another way of making people the other, another way of viewing people not in our sets are different and lesser. (Ok, some people say "A person's race is irrelevant because they share my religion" well fine, but isn't that just swapping one category for another??)

The problem is that religion is an unnecessary categorisation. It is yet another way for people to be viewed as the other, as the lesser, the polluted, as the god-forsaken: when in reality, of course, we are all the same. It is this type of thinking, which allows our leaders (who yes, indeed do want power!) to send us to war. We say, "Oh, it is unfortunate, but they are only the Other, after all" instead of the correct response which is "**** Off!"

This is why Hitler was such an evil man; he was very good at putting people into categories and acting on those judgements. He killed millions of Jews, millions of Russian and thousands of homosexuals and people with disabilities, all because they were in a different 'set' than him.

Maybe you are right, maybe we will never 'progress into a higher life form', but surely getting rid of such a needless barrier between people as religion is a step in the right direction?

1190. An apology to Peter Kay

Comment #25146 by Corylus on March 10, 2007 at 11:40 am

Comment 37. by Cheshire Cat

I understand your position. What type of language you use in debates, what helps and what does not, is a fine line to walk. (Personally, I can see valid points from both sides!) I think maybe you should talk about this in the forum.

N.B. This is not only because this is an important question, but also because I suspect that Richard has to keep a close eye on this particular thread. Reading criticism of oneself is never easy, and it sounds like he has been having a tough time for the last day or so. What say we cut the guy some slack?

1191. Response to Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris

Comment #25095 by Corylus on March 10, 2007 at 5:09 am

Religion is not the root of all evil. It is however the root of many bad facial hair decisions. Discuss!

1192. An apology to Peter Kay

Comment #25090 by Corylus on March 10, 2007 at 4:31 am

It is interesting that this hack chose Peter Kay for this exercise in s**tstirring

Peter comes across as such a sweet, lovely man; one of those all too rare people that it is absolutely impossible to dislike. I can see the response that this is trying to elicit: "Richard Dawkins attacks Peter Kay! Peter Kay??! Wow, then he really must be as mean as they say".

Not fair, not fair at all. The Guardian used to be a sensible paper – I really do not know what they are playing of as late.

I think though that this might be an own goal. The Guardian could not refuse to print Richard's letter, and he comes across as very gracious in it.

1193. The Archbishop whose words came from same hymnsheet as a Marxist

Comment #25089 by Corylus on March 10, 2007 at 4:15 am

Whoops! Looks like someone has landed their little selves in the excrement! Mind you, he's an archbishop, so he could always cite Ecclesiastes 1:9 in his defence:

"What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done; there is nothing new under the sun." ;-)

1194. British Book Awards shortlists 2007

Comment #24787 by Corylus on March 8, 2007 at 2:47 pm

(Rats! Lost comment ... everyone please ignore if this appears twice!)

1) Well done Richard.

2) Well done also to the other authors nominated (who may well be reading these comments). Writing is hard work with no guaranteed reward, and I am really glad that these awards exist so that your effort is applauded and recognised. I have read some, (although I admit to my shame not all!), of the other books nominated and I believe the standard is very high.

3) I will be voting for TGD, although this is not because I agree with it 100% (I don't). I will not be voting for it because I ascribe to a 'personality cult' (I don't). I for one do not judge non-fiction works in these terms. I will be voting for it because it has a concrete structure, sets out its arguments clearly and grammatically and does not patronize its reader. Call me a British pedant if you wish, but that is the way I think.

BTW. Bizarro - glad you're back, your comments are always fun. The following particularly intrigued me: -

"Wow, I didn't know a book containing little more than strawmen and hyper-dogmatic vitriol was considered higher literature, even in Europe."

Well, I don't know about you, but I can't talk abour God all the time! Let's change the subject for a moment. You seem to be implying that:

a) higher literature exists in the US.

I completely and utterly agree: some of the greatest 20th Century novels have come out of the USA. (Personally, I am a big fan of Steinbeck and I have to say 'To Kill a Mockingbird' is one of my top five favourite novels). I love American literature; it is generally wonderfully clear and often contains amazing, evocative descriptions of landscape.

b) higher literature does not exist in Europe.

Please justify this statement.

Come on, stuff God: let's talk books.

1195. Why Children Love Their Security Blankets

Comment #24755 by Corylus on March 8, 2007 at 10:38 am

This is a really interesting study, but I wonder if they have controlled for the confounding variable of smell.

Children, seem to have a very sensitive sense of smell. Maybe they will not accept copies, not because they lack essential essences, but because they simply don't smell right. This would be especially true of soft toys and blankets. (I dimly recall causing absolute havoc whenever my mother put my bear in the washing machine).

Nevertheless, might be a grain of truth in all this.

1196. Conservapedia v Wikipedia

Comment #24679 by Corylus on March 8, 2007 at 3:22 am

This is amazing! I have been playing on this site all morning, no work done at all.

I found it particularly interesting to compare and contrast the wiki and the conservapedia entries on radiocarbon dating. Even for a non-scientist like me the, the latter seems kinda ... short. Why would that be I wonder? Needs updating methinks.

BTW, I note their dislike of English spelling - ROFLMAO! Those snooty Brits, always inserting their 'u's where they are not wanted. Sure sign of moral decay that: superfluous vowels.

1197. Why there are almost no genuine atheists

Comment #24615 by Corylus on March 7, 2007 at 3:28 pm

1)Comment 88. or #24586 by Homo Economicus.
Well said: made me sniffle. (A rare achievement)

2)Stephen J: I admire you for being willing to post comments that you know will be unpopular - I like people who do that, and I have read your posts with interest, but I think you are mistaken.

I was tempted to talk to you about your understanding of Hume and the Naturalistic Fallacy. I was tempted to point out that not all atheists are nihilists (I'm quite cheerful) or even utilitarians (I would put myself in the 'emotivist' moral camp: an old fashioned position, but one that I am fond of). However, it is sometimes better to use concrete examples:-

Image for a moment that two people have the same moral dilemma, but they differ in their views concerning god.

Person 1: goes and consults the holy book of his choice.

Person 2: does not do this and instead considers the probable consequences of her actions, the improbable consequence of her actions, her feelings and the feelings of those around her.

They both come to a conclusion. It may well be the same conclusion. In practice it probably will be. (I do have theistic friends, and I am not so closed-minded as to think that they are incapable of acting correctly!)

However, I must ask you. Who has made the valid, mature, moral decision? The person who has thought about the issues; or the person who has done what he was told?

1198. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #24226 by Corylus on March 5, 2007 at 11:51 am

Wee flea / David / StPetes

I would like to respond to your points (I like to think that I manage to be civil in my posts even to people I disagree with!) However, I am afraid you haven't expressed yourself clearly enough in order for me to do so.

I have two simple questions:

1) What exactly do you mean by 'myth'? (It may be that your semantic definition of myth differs from other people here. Possibly we are talking at cross purposes?)

2) What precisely did you find 'brilliant' about Plantinga's article? Was it a specific point, or generally the whole thing? (I would personally like to know this as I spent an hour of my precious life reading and responding to that article: and it is an hour that I am never going to retrieve). What deep, meaningful, enlightening, philosophical, spiritual, sublime insight did I miss?

BTW: The fact that such articles as Plantinga's are posted on this site should demonstrate something about how 'biased' it is. (Unless of course 'Josh' is one of your many pseudonyms?)

1199. Houses of the Holy

Comment #24132 by Corylus on March 5, 2007 at 1:09 am

Sigh.. I like to think I am a pretty articulate individual, but I realise that often other people express themselves better than I could ever hope to.. Therefore, I will leave you with a quote, from the lyrics of a song called "Holy Smoke" about preachers like this:

"I've lived in filth; I've lived in sin, but I still smell cleaner than the s**t you're in"
Bruce Dickinson (Iron Maiden)

1200. The Dawkins Confusion: Naturalism ad absurdum

Comment #23665 by Corylus on March 2, 2007 at 1:56 am

There are some great posts here: I find it really interesting that so many people can dislike something for so many different reasons. It is very hard to unpick something like this to find a central point that is mistaken - very possibly because there is no central point.

However, if anyone needs a quick bit of evidence that this is a bad review (i.e. symptomatic of someone who hasn't properly/read understood) I can only point out the following quote:

"Chapter 3, "Why There Almost Certainly is No God," is the heart of the book."

Well, it's Chapter 4 in my version, matey. I guess Platinga and I have reading different books!