101. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162556 by Sargeist on April 17, 2008 at 4:11 am

Thanks, Steve. You always manage to make it concise! :)

Well, I would say that it is not a good thing in general. But there seems to me to be a difference between believing in things for which we have good evidence of their non-existence or incorrectness, and believing in things for which we have no evidence of their correctness.

If you see what I mean.

Er... let me try: I believe there are solutions to x^n plus y^n = z^n for n != 2. I am wrong, because Wiles has shown that no such solutions exist. But you might believe there are odd perfect numbers. These have not been shown to *not* exist, so you are justified in believing it, even if your reason is just "I like the idea".


[edit: problem with plus signs]
??

102. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162554 by Sargeist on April 17, 2008 at 4:07 am

Damn, now I'm thinking: "My elderly aunt with cancer thinks that she will go to a nice place full of bunnies, and so she does not mind not being treated. This causes me emotional distress, so by my previous attempt at refutation, I should force her to have treatment, so it does not harm me."

But, then I am harming her by forcing her to do something against her will. I cannot prove to her that she is wrong. She cannot prove to me that I am wrong. All we really have is the fact that no one has provided evidence to back up the afterlife belief. But she could say: "well, it doesn't make me wrong."

103. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162552 by Sargeist on April 17, 2008 at 4:05 am

I think that the "harm other people" bit could be reasonably construed to include causing me emotional distress.

But, I admit, the "no harm" proviso is probably somewhat hard to define.

Is this why people like truth? It doesn't matter if it makes you feel good or not, there is something nice and concrete and unarguable about it? That's often how I feel.

104. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162549 by Sargeist on April 17, 2008 at 4:03 am

Is it the "doesn't harm other people" bit? There are people here who value truth over much else, and I am one of them. But there are other ways of living, and much as I might think religious people are loonies, I can't really get worked up over the ones who hold entirely nebulous beliefs about afterlives etc. If they start making truth claims for which we have refuting evidence, then by all means demonstrate their incorrectness. But saying "I like to think there is an afterlife, because it's a nice way for the universe to be", seems vague enough to be bearable. By me, at least.

Or is the worry that this is normally followed at some point by: "and I know what god wants, and it is to cut you all into tiny pieces"?

105. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162542 by Sargeist on April 17, 2008 at 3:55 am

I'm not sure what the problem is with people believing something that is not true, if it makes them happy and doesn't harm other people.

Have I misunderstood people's objections?

106. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162481 by Sargeist on April 17, 2008 at 2:48 am

While vaguely on the topic of god being able to do anything, have I blathered on here about one of my favourite criticisms of god and his miracles? Why are miracles so bloody banal? Not to mention rather inscrutable.

I mean, in what sense is a weeping statue actually representative of an all loving god? My girlfriend pointed out last night that things usually cry when you've been nasty to them. So surely a weeping Madonna is a bad sign? (not as bad as her recent Bond theme, though - argh!)

Anyway, about miracles: water into wine is simply liquid into another liquid. What about sand into wine? Shoes into wine? Roman centurions into wine? Or, radically, just make some bloody wine out of thin air!?

There is more of this nonsense in Islam, too. Mohammad makes an old she-goat produce milk when he and his followers were marching around in need of refreshment. A miracle! Hmm, female goats making milk - wow. How about: stones making milk? Combine harvesters making milk. Or, again, bloody bottles of ice cold milk, with little foil tops on!

Rargh!

[edit: damned typos!]

107. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162477 by Sargeist on April 17, 2008 at 2:44 am

Steve,

I'm not sure if it's really "meaning", but more a conflation of "reason" with "meaning". If some conscious being out there made a decision to bring us into existence then, even if we don't know why, or like it, then there is the possibility of there being a usual, human-like kind of "reason" for it.

I don't find it reassuring, but clearly a lot of people do.

Either that, or they are all just parrotting something they once heard in the hope that it'll deflect attention away from the fact that they've been brainwashed. Like when people end up using "not fit for purpose" or "institutionally " just because they can't be bothered to think for themselves.

108. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162280 by Sargeist on April 16, 2008 at 1:46 pm

You can't go wrong with a bit of Perl, epeeist. Oh, wait, maybe I've spelled that wrong...

Steve: I suppose I'm basing my view of theist private beliefs on my dealings with those who start of with what they call "arguments" and end up with "well, that's why they call it faith". Surely no one would ever use that as a fallback if they actually knew their beliefs held water?

(ps. I'm afraid that I can't keep up with these threads with the tenacity of the rest of you!)

109. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162219 by Sargeist on April 16, 2008 at 11:36 am

I sort of side with the view that there is just something about the brains of the irreligious that prevents them (us?) from quite "getting it" as concerns those airy-fairy fairy-beliefs.

I went to church every Sunday until I was about 13, and I really don't know if I believed in god. What would I have said if I had been asked? Probably would never have occurred to me: I was too young, I expect. But grown people who cannot give you a straight answer when you ask why they believe something... it boggles the mind. I know that people may want to debate my definitions here, but I do think that everyone has "evidence" on which they base their beliefs. I say this because everyone has some kind of reason, and that reason had to have been engendered by something. But all they really have evidence for, I contend, is the fact that they believe. The frozen waterfall, the blinding flash of light, the 87 pound 50, etc, all presented evidence that led them to belief, if not evidence of the thing they believe in.

What really bothers me though, really, deep into my guts, is that these people won't even entertain the notion that there is another explanation for what they experienced.

Oh, there are just so many things to say, and so little chance of my being coherent about them!

110. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162167 by Sargeist on April 16, 2008 at 9:02 am

epeeist,

My conclusion has been for some time now that, in some way I cannot quite fathom, they must *know* that their beliefs are nonsense, that they are skating on thin evidentiary ice, that they are wasting their time on an insubstantial apparition of a parody of a worthwhile endeavour. And because they know that everything will crash down at the slightest breath, they really cannot permit themselves to acknowledge any chinks of doubt.

111. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162154 by Sargeist on April 16, 2008 at 8:34 am

Al-

I appreciate entirely that all of us have different shades of opinion on this. In fact, I am not entirely certain that I am comfortable with my "try not to be nasty" attitude all the time. I think that through the text medium it is safer to avoid direct abuse in order to get an argument across. But, naturally, there are some people who will be offended simply by "what you are saying is verifiably incorrect". So, ultimately, maybe a mixture of all approaches is a good one :)

112. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162152 by Sargeist on April 16, 2008 at 8:32 am

Vaal:

Now that makes me smirk like a crazy :)

113. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162145 by Sargeist on April 16, 2008 at 8:23 am

Al-

I behave in the same way. I am generally littering my comments here and my interpersonal conversations with "it seems to me", "I think that", "(to me)", "from my point of view" and so on. I just think (there it is again) that the ideal we should hold ourselves up to is to be polite, simply and only because we don't like others being rude to us.

And I may be using "we" and "us" when I really me "I" and "me", but you get my gist.

More specifically, though, I was not saying "we should be polite because it gets results." If I may give an example: I once had a housemate who would play his music really loudly. I was often tempted to just play mine loudly too, as "that'll show him", but if he is playing his music loudly simply because he has no sense of politeness, but I play mine loudly *deliberately to annoy*, then I think I am more wrong.

114. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162131 by Sargeist on April 16, 2008 at 8:06 am

Al-
Much as I know it is difficult to do so, I tend to think that if a person is behaving in a way that I find offensive or unpleasant then, by inference, I must wish them not to behave like that. Hence, for me to behave in those ways I dislike is inconsistent with my position.

Now, of course, in practice I am not as polite as the ideal, but I do think this is the ideal up to which to hold ourselves.

115. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162130 by Sargeist on April 16, 2008 at 8:03 am

Philip,
I thought it was coffee passed through a civet? Or is a civet a type of cat? (rargh, in the age of t'internet, one can not be permitted to get things wrong... *runs to check* yes, a civet is a cat, damn)

Found a site selling it: http://www.firebox.com/product/1077
This part of the description of bog-standard coffees made me smirk:

it's gonna take more than a few choccy sprinkles and an injection of hot milk to get us frothing with excitement.

116. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162126 by Sargeist on April 16, 2008 at 7:52 am

I often think that people are being rather inconsistent when, essentially, letting "mentally ill" people off the hook for their behaviour. He's not a bad man, he just has anger management issues. He's not a rude git, he just has mild autism. Or whatever example you want to use. My view is that the very existence of that which we call *personality* is effectively the evidence (for me) that we lack the kind of free will that some theologians and others would like to think we have.

It just seems to be the case that only the extreme end of the personality variation curve is designated as "uncontrollable", while the rest of it is just "rude", "angry", "unpleasant". Is it simply the uncommonness of some behaviours that lead to them being described as an "illness"?

117. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162098 by Sargeist on April 16, 2008 at 6:49 am

Philip,

I'm only concerned with how cold that tea is going to be. You've been stuck in a "Strongbow-aaaah!" for some time now. Ready to wake up to the error of your ways and smell the coffee?

Mark.

118. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162095 by Sargeist on April 16, 2008 at 6:44 am

The trouble with relativity is that it always seems to disadvantage the traveller: I spend an hour travelling, but everyone else moves on by 100 years. It's like how England's exchange rate with the rest of the world seems to always mean that you're buggered if you want to come and spend money here from abroad.

What we really want (I think) is to be able to make our time run more quickly than other people's, so that I can do 3 weeks of revision in your 10 minutes.

I guess you just have to make sure all the others are closer to the black hole than you are... (and then give them an extra push; no, I wasn't thinking that)

119. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162088 by Sargeist on April 16, 2008 at 6:33 am

I agree with Steve here: on the occasions I have gone to my mum's church to meet her for her lift home, I have found the people (whom I know from many years ago when I went to church every week) to be perfectly nice, but the physical act of being there just feels rather hypocritical on my part. It shouldn't because it's just a building... but, well, *shudder* it just makes me feel odd.

120. School bars same-sex partners at formals

Comment #162040 by Sargeist on April 16, 2008 at 3:18 am

Comment #161606 by MaxD:

This reminded me of a quote (Quentin Crisp? can't remember)

I'm glad I don't like peas, because if I did, I'd eat them, and I can't stand them.

121. Fleabytes

Comment #161196 by Sargeist on April 15, 2008 at 2:55 am

Geoff:

It's not so much goth metal, as metal such as that which might be listened to by goths if they were more into the music and less into the hair and makeup.

Actually, I'm not being fair to goths there. My local town has a large contingent of goths in it, hanging around the town centre and the cathedral's graveyard. And they are far less intimidating than a much smaller group of hoody-wearing, track-suited, baseball-capped oiks.

Up the goths! (actually, there was this one girl...)

122. British schools are falling for the pseudoscience of Brain Gym. Why fill kids' heads with nonsense?

Comment #160805 by Sargeist on April 14, 2008 at 12:12 pm

This reminded me of the bit in Brasseye where "Dr Fox" says, "There's no evidence for it, but it's a scientific fact."

123. The Art of Creating Controversy Where None Existed

Comment #159858 by Sargeist on April 13, 2008 at 9:09 am

yussell:

A really good (fictional) investigation of the sort of thing you mention can be found in the book "The Trigger" by Arthur C. Clarkr and Michael Kube McDowell.

I really enjoyed it, although it is rather USA-centric in parts :)

124. Fleabytes

Comment #159839 by Sargeist on April 13, 2008 at 8:22 am

Hmm, not heard of the Geto Boys.. might have to ch-ch-check it out.

That line reminded me of the famous Johnny Cash lyric "I shot a man in Reno, just to watch him die."

Quick! Ban all country music! All it does is lead to wife beating and over-farming of arable land.

Oddly, the lyrics of Burzum are more in the vein of what I like to call "snowy woodscapes". If you don't know it already, find and listen to "Dunkelheit" - 7 minutes of loveliness. It's on youtube (of course). The music and lyrics seem at odds (to me) with the murder and alleged church burnings of Varg Vikernes (the man behind Burzum)

You never see goths going around wearing t-shirts of "true" metal. *shakes head* what is rebellion coming to?

125. Fleabytes

Comment #159820 by Sargeist on April 13, 2008 at 7:48 am

Hi Peace,

My sister is a big fan of Manson, and I do think he has a good brain in his head - I am basing this on the comments he made after being blamed for another one of those young-fool-with-a-gun shootings that the USA has from time to time. I just have a general feeling that he seems to appeal to people (ok, teenagers) who want to feel a bit "oooh, naughty". It could just be that I don't like his music very much, and my audio prejudices are coming through.

Admittedly, my favourite black metal bands (Burzum, Mayhem, Darkthrone, Dissection - in case anyone missed that) don't exactly have the most moral background... but I seem pretty able to divorce their antics from my enjoyment of their music.

Mark.

ps. The absolute *best* black metal song ever (yes, ever) though is "Dead As Dreams" by Weakling. 20 minutes of the most glorious sounds ever created. Surely. The evidence is there for anyone who opens their ears. ;)

126. Fleabytes

Comment #159803 by Sargeist on April 13, 2008 at 7:20 am

Praise the gourd, I have got up to speed, finally. Spent the whole morning reading this thread from page 140 or thereabouts. All interesting, rambling, peculiar stuff.

I don't, sadly, have much to contribute except to say that I regard Marilyn Manson as, you know, just a *tinsy* bit, er..., tame. I mean, look at it all, the make-up, the snarling around and acting all dangerous. Dear oh dear. I much prefer a nice heavy dose of black metal. (And this is even on-topic, because Paula mentioned it!)

For someone like myself, who tries to be the most ungodly person in any room, my absolute, obsessive, all-encompassing love of black metal sometimes seems a bit odd to me because of its predominant attention towards Satan. I've not got much idea if the members of the bands believe in god, or if they just like being offensive and singing blasphemous lyrics. Either way, the music is fabulous.

If anyone is tempted by some "evil" black metal, good places to start are: Burzum, Dissection, Darkthrone and Mayhem.

And... just to try to be relevant a bit, here is a nice song by Frank Zappa:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RodRD4-sQ2s

Mark.

127. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #158276 by Sargeist on April 10, 2008 at 9:25 am

Hmm, the old "admirer of Hitler" thing is a bit of a thorny one. I'm sure there must be something "complimentary-ish" that one could say about a leader who managed to be charismatic enough to get so many people to do such abhorrent things on his say so. And all that business with the Hitler Youth must surely show some amazing ability to plan and manipulate. Not sure I'd say "impressed" though, but I have often thought that the world needs, shall we say, "moral" people with similar power.

Of course, this is all making me shudder just typing it, because it seems so close to apologetics, but I don't think I've given any reasons to assume that I'm coming from that angle.

Anyway, my trouble is that because I have not been personally affected through family or friends etc by the final solution, I feel that I view him as a bit of a legendary maniac figure. The events bother me, but most of the time only in a vague "that was awful" way. I don't get all miserable about what Mao or Stalin did, either. But in the West there is a background level of "sharp intake of breath" if anyone talks about Hitler in anything other than a foaming at the mouth kind of way.

128. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #158261 by Sargeist on April 10, 2008 at 9:08 am

Hurrah! (for me)

I'm actually finding this holocaust discussion one of the more interesting that I've seen on RD.NET. I mean, *clearly* the world would have to be really barmy for the final solution and holocaust etc to never have happened, but I'm just wondering if I've missed what ASMarques is *actually* trying to say. It seems that he/she is happy to accept that there was an attempt to get rid of all Jews from free society. It seems that all the evidence points to concentration camps and mass murder, and the *desire* to have all Jews wiped out. That the Nazis were not successful, or that it wasn't 6 million Jews, but maybe 6 million people in total and 6 minus n million Jews, doesn't seem to matter too much. I think I've lost track of what is meant to be being argued here.

129. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #158248 by Sargeist on April 10, 2008 at 8:54 am

Now, what did I just say in #158210?

130. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #158228 by Sargeist on April 10, 2008 at 8:36 am

Quetz,

I'm not sure I agree that someone would have to *want* something not to have happened, in order to believe that it didn't. Can people not be just simply wrong, but believe they're not? For instance, when my girlfriend's friend's father thinks that the reason I am not a catholic is that I don't want to believe in god, he's wrong, but I am pretty vocal in claiming that there is no god.

Which is not to say that I don't agree with your overall point about the absurdity of not believing in the holocaust, but I hope you see what I mean.

131. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #158218 by Sargeist on April 10, 2008 at 8:19 am

I may have used this example before, because it's one of the few things I've ever come up with that I think stands up quite well:

Another example of impossible conspiracy, knowing what we know about human nature, is the idea that Armstrong and Aldrin were not the first men on the moon.

My reasoning? Imagine the situation, Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins (who he?) are in a meeting in which it is stated that, because of the cost, the lack of progress and the unfeasibility of bringing them all back alive, the moon landing would be faked: "So, chaps, Armstrong goes out first, says the words, Aldrin follows, wonderful stuff. Er.. what's that Collins? (who he?) What about you? Oh, well, someone would have to stay in the orbiter, wouldn't he?"

So.. knowing what we know about people, would *you* be happy to let other people be renowned throughout history for something that didn't happen, while you become a footnote?

So.. that's why there are some conspiracies that are impossible. Who would continue the lie that their grandparents were rounded up and killed, if they knew that actually they weren't?

132. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #158210 by Sargeist on April 10, 2008 at 8:10 am

What I'd be interested in is whether someone can point to an unambiguous example of an historical situation that *was* misrepresented in an enormous conspiracy but which people much later were somehow willing to go along with?

Is there anything? (No, don't say "Christianity"...)

I'm just intrigued by the idea.

133. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #158198 by Sargeist on April 10, 2008 at 7:48 am

I do kind of agree that there seems to be a tendency for some Jewish spokespeople to regard the Holocaust as a sacrosanct topic which must never be subjected to contrary comment, but that all other events and beliefs can be criticised in whatever offensive fashion one wishes. I think I got a hint of this from the Rabbi in the video.

However, even if this is true, it doesn't mean that the offensive things that are said about the holocaust are any more true just because some people are getting a bit shrill.

Just because the Muslim convert in the video made me want to scream every time I heard her open her mouth to say something, doesn't *of itself* mean that Islam is untrue. (though it is)

134. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #158196 by Sargeist on April 10, 2008 at 7:43 am

But in all of these examinations of who said what and when, isn't there still the undeniable reality that there was the intention to exterminate all Jews? And that there was a pretty damn good attempt at it?

135. The books that inspire me

Comment #158183 by Sargeist on April 10, 2008 at 7:29 am

Layla,

My feeling about the Brief History of Time is that anyone who doesn't know any of the stuff in the book will find that they learn nothing from it, and anyone who knows some of the stuff in the book, will learn nothing from it.

I admit, though, that I did read it at college when it came out. And read the 2nd ed. of Selfish Gene, too. No prizes for guessing which one I got more out of... (ok, so I *was* doing physics courses at college, so maybe it was inevitable I would prefer Dawkins)

136. The books that inspire me

Comment #158179 by Sargeist on April 10, 2008 at 7:19 am

Nice thought experiment, sheepscarer. I like these sorts of hypotheticals. I used to rather like the Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, until I discovered it was an attempt at getting children to believe in the Christ story. And that bit with father Christmas turning up! Argh! Now, the very idea of the book fills me with nausea.

137. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #158173 by Sargeist on April 10, 2008 at 7:07 am

Cartomancer,

Do you happen to know which thread it is that you were mentioning?

Mark

138. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #158158 by Sargeist on April 10, 2008 at 6:47 am

Quetz,

I've been having a good read through those Wiki articles over the past few hours (with bits of free time taken) and the references to the actual diary entries and speeches of those involved seemed to me to be pretty conclusive.

The danger with the 6 million figure (if that is indeed a mantra that is repeated often - Wikipedia suggests not) is that people will, I think, have a tendency to say "well, they were wrong about *that* so maybe the whole thing is exaggerated beyond reason". This is just something about people, I think. If the Lancet is wrong about 655,000 Iraqis being killed during the Gulf wars, then I think it would be in the interests of truth to know that, but it would, I agree, still not make the deaths of however many people any less tragic.

This holocaust tangent and how it has affected people on this thread does lead back nicely to the Big Questions program, though, because the novelist AL Kennedy at one point said something like "why does freedom of speech have to mean freedom to offend?" I was staggered by this. If we only ever wanted to say things that were perfectly sweet and nice and complimentary, why would anyone ever bother to enshrine it in law? Someone once said that freedom of speech precisely *means* freedom to be offensive.

139. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #158112 by Sargeist on April 10, 2008 at 4:42 am

Ok, I know I'm going to regret getting involved, but what is meant by the claim that there are no bureaucratic traces?

I do wonder where the bodies of 6 million people might have been disposed of, but the fact that I don't know where they have gone doesn't really mean much. I'm afraid that I end up coming down on the side of all the many many people who have found no reason to seriously doubt that a very large number of Jews was either deliberately killed or allowed to die because they were believed to be subhuman or deserve it.

However, the creation of laws that prohibit people from claiming that it never happened does seem to me to be the sort of thing that allows people to later claim "well, the reason why you don't hear contrary views is that people would be imprisoned if they say anything". This is similar to the tactic used by the ID brigade about why they have no peer-reviewed papers.

I'd better slink out now and leave this to people like Cartomancer and MPhil. But at least I have started filling in my gaps of 20th C history.

140. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #158055 by Sargeist on April 10, 2008 at 3:08 am

I've just realised that my saying:

think there might be some benefit to allowing people to say these contrary things, even about something as emotive as the holocaust, because it provides the opportunity for people to be reminded about what happened.

God allowed the holocaust to happen because it allowed people to show their compassion

141. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #158046 by Sargeist on April 10, 2008 at 2:55 am

Ok, so I might be wandering into something that I should keep well out of (like those abortion discussions) but, personally, I don't see much of a problem with the concept of a general set of slowly evolving, emergent orders/understandings, filtering down from the top that the Jews should be got rid of in some way.

Once you have the general idea, surely this could just be built upon, camps set up, plans devised and built upon, and a whole bunch of improvisation instigated?

I must admit, though, I am not an historian, of even the slightest kind, and so it does interest me that people say, for example, that there is no evidence that certain places contained murder factories. I find this interesting because I've taken it for granted that everything I've heard about the Final Solution was true.

I think there might be some benefit to allowing people to say these contrary things, even about something as emotive as the holocaust, because it provides the opportunity for people to be reminded about what happened.

But please don't shoot me for saying that...

142. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #157777 by Sargeist on April 9, 2008 at 2:14 pm

Hang on...

Paula is not only gorgeous but also SOUNDS LIKE JENNY AGUTTER!?!?

*races faster than light to watch video*

143. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #157773 by Sargeist on April 9, 2008 at 2:10 pm

It has been mentioned previously about how it was a bit odd for Richard to be sat back there all on his own, even though there were others in the audience's front row who were of similar opinions to him. Whereas this program was heavily populated by mad people, I would like to see a program in which the audience could still be mostly made up of crazies, but which also had Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett and Harris (who I *love* listening to) all sitting together as a panel. I really want to have some forthright sense being thrown back at the loonies. It just always seems to end with the sensible people sounding like they're being spoilsports. :(

144. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #157720 by Sargeist on April 9, 2008 at 1:12 pm

But isn't "making up your own mind" part of the problem these days? Aren't people here getting rather het up over holocaust revisionism because of the possibility that people will get convinced by it? Aren't we worried about the teaching of "the controversy" over evolution because we're worried that it gives credence to what is, essentially, bollocks?

I read the posts on here and often think to myself "I wish I could be so eloquent", but I am wracked constantly during everything I type with an insistent voice saying "ah, but what about..." and "well, someone could well argue..." and this almost totally buggers any chance I have of making useful and coherent points.

Damn.

145. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #157710 by Sargeist on April 9, 2008 at 12:51 pm

Knowing what to pay attention to and deal with as if plausible or truthful is just one of those difficult things, I suppose. But I do worry whether everything that isn't trivial doesn't just come down to an argument from authority.

I did physics at university, and there are a lot of things there that sound really far fetched, but the fact that transistors work, NMR scanners work, solar panels work, radio telescopes work etc etc is pretty good evidence that not everything that people claim is true about quantum mechanics (at least in terms of how to calculate with it) is bonkers.

Similarly, evolution by means of natural selection is just unavoidable, it works itself, doesn't need any fancy belief crap, and we know that if it is wrong then it simply cannot be entirely wrong, because it would have shown up by now.

This is pretty much the kind of way I think about the holocaust. There simply *must* have been something on the scale that people say there was because it is inconceivable that people could have been mistaken to such an extent. Even if people are too afraid now to be a contrary voice, I can't see how this could lead to all the enormous quantities of evidence that support the thesis actually being false.

146. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #157687 by Sargeist on April 9, 2008 at 12:20 pm

Al-,

Oddly, I bought the book because it had good comments on the cover, but looking at the reviews on Amazon (by people who sound knowledgeable) I am a little concerned that I'll end up being misled by it.

Which brings to mind another of my (many) flaws: I am too ready to be impressed by people who are capable of writing coherent-sounding paragraphs on topics about which I know little. How can I tell if what I am reading is sensible or not? This bothers me a great deal.

147. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #157671 by Sargeist on April 9, 2008 at 11:57 am

Comment #157634 by Incredulous

Maybe a little off topic, but a German friend of mine once told me about the complicity of many ordinary Germans in rounding up Jews. They did this, she says, because of fear of authority and because everyone else was doing it: a kind of way of letting everyone know you were batting on the same side.

148. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #157456 by Sargeist on April 9, 2008 at 5:52 am

I'm slightly worried about myself when I watch people such as are in these clips, because I really cannot help but think that they are all totally insane. and I don't mean in a colloquial, metaphorical "he's crazy!" kind of way, but really, actually, totally insane and unhinged in a "wearing a foil hat so the government cannot read my thoughts" way.

149. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #157455 by Sargeist on April 9, 2008 at 5:51 am

How about:

Peter Tatchell would not exist without having a mother. His mother must have had sex with a man in order for Peter to exist. Peter's existence is good, in and of itself, so the behaviour that led to his existence must be its own justification. If Peter's mother had been a lesbian, Peter would not exist. Therefore, his mother's being a lesbian (and, by extension, all homosexual behaviour) leads to the non-existent of potential humans.

(or some such bollocks)

150. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #156966 by Sargeist on April 8, 2008 at 12:48 pm

Paula,

Great post, but I'm afraid I was slightly distracted while reading it because I wished really hard and am now a billionaire married to Naoko Mori.

The way the world works is such a surprise to me. How could I ever not have noticed before?!

Right, what's next... lime jelly trees and crisp bushes...