101. Conservative Atheists

Comment #17493 by Sancus on January 14, 2007 at 4:45 am

MarcKeys and JohnC, the mixing of religion and law should be prohibited on all levels.

102. Religiously Arguing: A response to Michael Novak

Comment #17489 by Sancus on January 14, 2007 at 3:53 am

Heatnzl, "theistic self-assurance" is an oxymoron.

Thank you for the link, denoir.

103. 10 Questions for Heather Mac Donald

Comment #17455 by Sancus on January 13, 2007 at 10:24 pm

Wonderful article! Let's hope she inspires the half of the conservatives she knows with the courage to come out of the closet as well.

A small comment regarding her thoughts about education,

8) If you are 18 and figuring out what course of study to pursue for the next 4 years what changes would you make to your educational path now that you have some hindsight?

I would study a lot more history. Thanks to my college's refusal to tell its ignorant students what an educated person should know-heaven forbid that it actually exercise intellectual authority!-I was required to study no history and didn't know enough to do so on my own.

I would hope that it is much easier to study on one's own today. The Information Age has made so much knowledge available, including knowledge about what knowledge is important. One does not have to "know enough" to start learning on one's own, one just needs to start, with anything. Then, follow the leads that look important. For example, when I read the translator's introduction to Plato's Republic by Allan Bloom, he recommended reading Rousseau's Emile, saying that these two books would make the reader well-informed about education discussions.

She's definitely right about students teaching each other. Not in a categorical sense, but a modern one, where students are forced to teach each other. It should be clear to any educator that that is going to create a lot of apathy. Unfortunately, it's not clear, and the educators seem bewitched by some mysterious influence. Perhaps, they are still revolting from their own educational oppression, which is quite understandable. I'm optimistic that all parties will eventually realize the value of educational liberty, now even more extraordinary in the 21st century.

104. For Human Eyes Only

Comment #17401 by Sancus on January 13, 2007 at 9:23 am

Luthien, women also have a greater tendency to look directly at the person who's speaking with them. Consequently, they hold eye contact in conversation more often. They are even more likely to physically bend their heads around obstacles to sustain eye contact, especially with each other.

So, heads up to the guys, your lady naturally has a greater sensitivity, and therefore a greater appreciation, of eye contact. Your meeting her eyes when she speaks to you is a greater sign of respect than it is to other men, and not meeting her eyes is a greater sign of disrespect than it is to other men. This is the real root of those embarrassing moments when women appear bothered by you're looking at their breasts or something. I will go out on a limb and say it doesn't really matter what else you're looking at, just your failure to sustain eye contact. You are expected to go out of your way to do so.

105. For Human Eyes Only

Comment #17399 by Sancus on January 13, 2007 at 8:56 am

Whenever the NYT talks about "cooperation" I want to roll my eyes, but this article kept me reading. Very well-written.

Oh, yeah, rolling my eyes? That's one uncooperative reason why I'd want to advertise my eye direction; to show that I'm not interested. This helps when I'm on the receiving end, too. If she sends the eye signal, I know something is wrong. Not that I get it a lot, or anything. :)

106. Gentle Rottweiler

Comment #17387 by Sancus on January 13, 2007 at 7:44 am

About the US and EU, did anyone see that recent BBC special, "Mortgaged to the Yanks"?

I had no idea that America used the loan to Britain as an opportunity to negotiate more politics into Breton Woods. Keynes was livid, originally preferring that they be politically independent economic entities, which they should have been. However, Keynes was apparently willing to give that up in favor of getting money for socialist Britain and its expensive ass empire. Left-leaning British atheists, what do the words "New Jerusalem" mean for you?

107. Gentle Rottweiler

Comment #17382 by Sancus on January 13, 2007 at 7:13 am

Thank you for the reply, JohnC. I'd like to think that my politics are peculiar enough to apply across borders, but that is a discussion for another thread.

But as to Richard's courage, or lack of it. He has 2 years off compulsory retirement of what would have been a universally lauded career now cashed in his prestige and marshalled his undoubted talents to headline a cause that has attracted a huge amount of opprobrium on at least 2 continents. While I have not hesitated here to criticise aspects of TGD, I would not myself be so mean-spirited as to imply a lack of courage on his part.

Richard mentioned in another interview that he expects to be asked back after the date of his retirement, hinting that he will continue. We'd certainly be fortunate! He seems to enjoy what he does as well.

He began his career as a vocal atheist. TGD was not a daring new thing for him. Indeed, it was very expected and quite an unremarkable thing to do, to write yet another atheistic book in a long line of atheistic books.

Richard does not lack courage. This is just not that courageous for him. He's only taking, what is for a scientist very safe, the question of God's existence, dismissing questions of morality as outside his focus. The courage we should be applauding is from the ordinary people who reject God. These people are not held academically accountable to existential claims of divine existence, but they are held socially accountable. Furthermore, I would bet that Richard would entirely agree with me.

You say he "cashed in his prestige," which sounds very strange and untrue. Quite the opposite, he cashed in on his prestige. This is what intelligent prestigious people do. It must be hard for you to accept, an author writing a book to earn money, creating as much publicity as possible. Are these bad things to do? No, of course not.

You'd rather think that he wrote it for politics? Well, it would have been more interesting, if he did. You and I would agree on that, except for your mistaken belief that it was a political book. Sorry, we weren't that fortunate!

Richard is a great man. Please do not think I am trying to bring him down or anything. We need his strength and example to inspire courage in others. However, he says he is not interested in anything other than the existential question. Just think, if he took the courageous step of moving beyond his interests?

After all, sometimes we find interesting things, that way.

108. Gentle Rottweiler

Comment #17341 by Sancus on January 13, 2007 at 1:34 am

The last bit sums everything up. The interviewer makes a wonderfully gratuitous left-wing defense of religion.

But might it not be that the advance of fundamentalism, the revival of religious belief, is dependent upon another sociological development, upon globalisation, upon the spread of a materialist consumer ethic? In such circumstances religion provides a way of resistance, a way of affirming values other than those derived from capitalism and the market place. By alienating the religious, we risk losing allies in that fight.

Allies. I've used that exact word many times on this site to explain why atheists on the left do not respond well to Dawkins. What's his reply?

I hadn't thought of that.

Now, it's entirely okay that he doesn't read my comments. Oxford professors have many other things to do, after all. But do those things really not include having thought of this before laying a categorical attack on religion?

Dawkins has helped me find the courage to overcome religion in my society. I am so grateful that he is helping others find the courage as well. The interviewer finishes on thanking Dawkins for his courage.

However, the interviewer should have realized by now that this isn't a courageous act for Dawkins. It takes courage for the rest of us, sure, but he just admitted to not even having thought of the main reason why socialists see religion as an ally. So, fear of that criticism did not even grace his consciousness. Is that courage or foolishness?

Well, it could be other things. Naivete? I am tempted to suggest "childishness," but some of you know what I think of that.

It all comes down to this: people are finding courage, and they should be applauded from the rafters for their courage. They are finding it with the help of Dawkins, a person with strength and acuity, raw skills which are sometimes confused for courage. Applaud him or vilify him, whatever. He's just stirring the pot.

109. Homophobia, not injustice, is what really fires the faiths

Comment #17106 by Sancus on January 10, 2007 at 10:52 pm

Get one thing clear: this law does not stop religions from banning gays joining their congregations or becoming priests. (Though they don't seem to be very good at it.) But it does oblige any organisation or business offering services to the public to offer them equally to all comers.

Churches are businesses, though. They provide a service and ask for a fee, even when it's to the homeless (in that case the fee is mandatory consumption of the religion). They even unabashedly call their worship and preaching "services," as if to pretend it has some significant value.

That's what's really wrong about this law. It gives more power to religion! By using the law to segregate them even more from other businesses, you give them even more special privileges.

We should be going the other direction. Instead of segregating religion, tax them like any other private organization. Furthermore, subject them to the same workplace laws. Don't give them any more special exclusions from the system.

110. 2006 Koufax award nominations are open

Comment #17027 by Sancus on January 10, 2007 at 7:27 am

By the way, there are meaningful differences between adults and children. One of those differences is that children do not take full responsibility for themselves, because they can't, since they're not old enough to take care of themselves. When a person becomes old enough, and they still don't take care of themselves, it makes sense to call them childish.

Of course there are meaningful differences, but this isn't one of them. Perhaps my experience with adults comes from just living in a religious community, but I have never met any that are able to take full responsibility for themselves -- except perhaps myself. Yes, even when I was a child! Especially when I was a child. There was never a time when I did not take full responsibility for myself, and it was not because I lived as an orphan in poverty or something.

Responsibility has nothing to do with age. Think about it. Why else does the word "childish" and "juvenile" have to be applied to adults so much? I'm tempted to call 97 percent of the adult world population childish, but that wouldn't make any sense, would it?

Furthermore, responsibility has nothing to do with the ability to "take care" of yourself. Not being able to work or provide for your living expenses does not dismiss you from your responsibilities.

111. Halting progress

Comment #17024 by Sancus on January 10, 2007 at 6:22 am

From Luthien

... If they were not running this service then they have a "right to Privacy" in their own home, but with a publicly advertised B&B this is clearly not an issue of privacy. To refuse access to people purely on the bases of sex, sexual orientation, or skin colour is indefensible for any reason.

It's just bad business! Makes you wonder how anyone can afford to discriminate against large swathes of potential customers. Such discrimination is a ridiculous luxury.

112. 2006 Koufax award nominations are open

Comment #16826 by Sancus on January 9, 2007 at 2:51 am

From nine9s

This mindset doesn't lift people up; it encourages them to bitch and complain about how the world done them wrong, blaming others for their own lot in life. It keeps people childish.

This is one the reasons why I've always thought of ageism as "the last prejudice." It's the knee-jerk willingness to associate thoughts and ideas you don't like with age. This prejudice absorbs every other in its wake, offering the same false sense of security. Everyone is backing into the ageist corner, the last vestige of the ignorant.

113. Reason, Unfettered by Faith

Comment #16819 by Sancus on January 9, 2007 at 1:44 am

Consider how religious faith is transmitted from one generation to the next. Even though extremist religious indoctrination, like that shown in the recent documentary Jesus Camp, is isolated, throughout the world children are generally introduced to religion — in churches, synagogues, and mosques — long before they are old enough to develop sophisticated analytical-reasoning skills.

Just when does this author think people are "old enough" to think about the "sophisticated" reasoning of religious doctrine?

Does he think there is any sophisticated reasoning at all regarding faith? Atheism will prejudge youth only to the expense of itself. A condescending attitude toward youth gives totally wayward credit to religion.

There is nothing sophisticated about religious thinking, but there is nothing childish about it either. It runs clear across all ages, cultures, nations, sexes, ethnicities, classes, and more.

Atheists need to get rid of their ageism, or they're just pretending to care.

The philosophical and metaphysical issues associated with the possibility of divine intelligence are well beyond the cognitive powers of most young children.

The philosophical and metaphysical issues with the possibility of divine intelligence are well beyond the cognitive powers of most people. Period. There is no need to narrow it to youth.

This association between religion and children among New Atheists has got to stop before it becomes insufferably ignorant.

114. Open Letter to Rev. John Auer

Comment #16808 by Sancus on January 8, 2007 at 11:21 pm

The scary thing is that there may be no hypocrisy, Andrew Charles. These are the sort of atrocities we can expect from people who think they have a right to mold and shape children.

115. Consciousness Without Faith

Comment #16807 by Sancus on January 8, 2007 at 11:08 pm

Hear hear, Logicel!

116. Ancient religion may face extinction

Comment #16806 by Sancus on January 8, 2007 at 11:02 pm

Thanks, Robert!

117. General Synod's Life of Christ

Comment #16677 by Sancus on January 8, 2007 at 2:38 am

scottishgeologist, thank you for pointing out that reference!

Also, here's a link to the "parrot sketch" they referred to, if anyone needs it. :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYWA8DdVEw0

118. Consciousness Without Faith

Comment #16667 by Sancus on January 8, 2007 at 1:34 am

There is an analogous insight into the nature of consciousness—too near to us, in a sense, to be easily seen. For most people it requires considerable training in meditation to catch a glimpse of it. But it is possible to notice that consciousness—that in you which is aware of your experience in this moment—does not feel like a self. It does not feel like "I."

There has been some active discussion about this in the forum under the basis for atheist morality. I have argued for the case of self-ownership on the basis that I can actually sense myself, and this sense of self is not an illusion. I am basing it on a sensation like the one Harris talks about.

I agree with Harris. It does not feel like an "I." However, that does not mean that it cannot feel like a self.

The confusion I have with Harris may be because I see a distinction between these two concepts. Linguistically they are already well distinguished. "I" is a personal pronoun but "self" is an ordinary noun. "Self" does not depend on an antecedent, but "I" does. The experience Harris is describing is, I think, the experience of the metaphorical antecedent to his "I." In other words, his self.

Logicel described the pleasure of this experience of the loss of self as "self-affirming" and "wonderfully positive." An elegant description! I feel that I know exactly what she means.

I do not know everything about this experience, which is why I do not take a dogmatic position that this actually is my self. But how can it be anything other than me? It is not a hallucination. It is not a loss of awareness. Is it more than me? Is it the universe? If it truly is a loss of self, and a loss of the existential separation between individuals, but with the retention of awareness, then our consciousness should really be able to extend beyond this existential separation.

119. Ancient religion may face extinction

Comment #16650 by Sancus on January 7, 2007 at 10:08 pm

Robert, I'm currently researching the broader Middle East around the time of Muhammad's birth. If you have any interesting resources about the struggles between Persia and Byzantium, and how they paved the way for Islamic conquest, it'd be great of you to share them.

120. Atheists challenge the religious right

Comment #16507 by Sancus on January 7, 2007 at 3:02 am

DavidJMH, I share your sentiment, especially because I would not worship God even if there was one, so my position on the matter is much more than non-religous or anti-religious.

I wish I could say "free spirit" but that raises eyebrows of those who think it is a supernatural endorsement. I'd like to say "freethinker" but there is more to my view than thought.

121. Sam Harris's Faith in Eastern Spirituality and Muslim Torture

Comment #16504 by Sancus on January 7, 2007 at 2:07 am

You forgot to close your bold tag, icouldbewrongbut.

Harris' intellectual courage is always inspiring. I'm looking forward to all the discoveries he's going to make in his neuroscience career. He makes me want to reconsider joining the field myself.

122. Ancient religion may face extinction

Comment #16503 by Sancus on January 7, 2007 at 1:51 am

The religion that gave us evil? Please someone pound the final nail in the coffin.

123. God-less

Comment #16501 by Sancus on January 7, 2007 at 1:32 am

Mr. Mark

Levin writes:

"Dawkins, though, thinks that religions are responsible for most of the human-inflicted horrors in the world: wars, inquisitions and their like. He acknowledges that atheists such as Mao and Stalin have inflicted incalculable damage, but, somewhat naively, not because they are atheists."

It's amazing, isn't it? The writer posits a ridiculous cause-and-effect and then calls Dawkins naive.

Can't god's apologists do better? Surely they realize that they're going to be hacked to pieces by penning such illogic.

Dawkins is naive to think that his vague Hegelian position on ethics should not be associated with the Hegelian positions of Stalin and Mao.

Furthermore, it's not a bad thing to be called naive. We're all naive about some things. Dawkins does not know what he's getting into with the morality question, so he is naive here. The existential question about the origin of species is his area of expertise and he excels brilliantly. Many are naive when it comes to his area.

The Stalin and Mao association will keep coming until Dawkins says something to differentiate himself from them. So far, all I've heard from him is that Stalinism and Maoism were natural "sawtooths" in the zeitgeist, a claim that only closer associates him with these philosophies.

124. General Synod's Life of Christ

Comment #16499 by Sancus on January 7, 2007 at 1:01 am

Halfway through, I really forgot that the Pythonist wasn't Christian, and it will take me at least three-score to stop laughing at that.

125. Secular fundamentalists are the new totalitarians

Comment #16323 by Sancus on January 6, 2007 at 4:31 am

Christians feel particularly aggrieved because we believe that Jesus invented secularism. Jesus's teachings desacralised the state: no authority, not even Caesar's, was comparable to God's.

Except parental authority. Atheism will eventually have to desacralise parents.

On an entirely different note, I just spent the last half hour looking at videos of Rowan Atkinson on YouTube!

126. Divided by a common language: Richard Dawkins clarifies his position

Comment #16306 by Sancus on January 6, 2007 at 3:05 am

MouthAlmighty, you are absolutely correct. If Dawkins wants to advance the notion that religious indoctrination is child abuse, then it should indeed be prevented in the home.

Hear me, atheists. Religions are not merely intellectual systems that make scientific claims about the universe. They are systems of obedience. They are used in the home by parents the same way they are used by politicians, to legitimize their power.

127. Executing Saddam Hussein was an Act of Vandalism

Comment #16298 by Sancus on January 6, 2007 at 1:55 am

surfermote, thank you very much for that link.

If Dawkins is going to keep making social science claims, he's going to have to do some social science research, especially in child psychology. It would not only help inform his very uninformed theory on the origin of religion, but also raise his own consciousness further about the injustices of childhood indoctrination.

128. Hybrid embryo work 'under threat'

Comment #16293 by Sancus on January 6, 2007 at 1:14 am

Moral zeitgeist not able to keep up with science, denoir?

129. Atheists challenge the religious right

Comment #16137 by Sancus on January 4, 2007 at 10:05 pm

Isn't the whole point of Dawkins, Harris, and Sweeney's work to confront both the religious right and the religious left? Not to mention the religious center?

Conservatism may have been conquered by religion, but there are trends that suggest the other side is next. The American Democrats started using religion to attract voters in this past election. Howard Dean has been very excited about creating an image for the Democrats as the moral values party. Recognizing that religious voting is on the rise, Democrats were eager to learn and they are learning well.

The non-religious may be on the rise, but do they vote?

Here's hoping for more atheist candidates on all sides.

130. Executing Saddam Hussein was an Act of Vandalism

Comment #15977 by Sancus on January 4, 2007 at 4:24 am

denoir:

When you drive your car, you pollute my air.

I don't drive. It pollutes my air! And it dirties my snow.

When you cause a change of any kind in an irreversible process you deprive other individuals of making that change. Hell, even in a reversible process, you deprive other individuals of making that change at that specific time.

That's because it's my change to make, not theirs. By the same token, I am not deprived when others make their own decisions. That is because they own their decisions, and I do not.

Saying that "an individual may do whatever he/she pleases as long as it doesn't hurt anybody else" is kindergarten ethics. It's nonsense in the real world.

Yes, it's quite wonderful that kindergartners are able to realize this empirical and very beautiful facet about themselves and the people around them. Even toddlers and babies appear to recognize it to some extent, although obviously it takes experience for them to learn the facts of experience.

What's sad, though, is when kindergartners and other young people have these very same rights violated in the process of their schooling, which is essentially a system of slavery. If that language sounds too strong, perhaps we can call it a prison for the innocent, or what might be more politically correct, "habilitation facilities." If they fail in these facilities, they may be forced to attend "rehabilitation facilities."

It is not surprising that you would use the word "kindergartener" as a pejorative. You have bought into the prejudices of your society, which condemns people for their age. They have not been properly educated into submission, so when someone like me also does not submit, you compare me to them, the uncivilized youth. I find this quite gratifying.

Perhaps chemical weapons would not need to exist in the "real world" if people like you did not exist. Forgive the broad generalization! I do not mean to associate you with the genuinely horrible people of history, but merely the large batch of fearful, submissive, and selfish ones, which also happens to include the aforementioned genuinely horrible.

Recognizing that a large amount of such people exist in the "real world," I wholeheartedly concede that my wonderfully childish and beautifully innocent ideal is just that -- an innocent ideal. It is not in practice now, not because it would not work, but because people like you so filled with guilt refuse it.

Even if you had an absolute standard of evaluating the consequences, you have no intrinsic normative system to compare their values. Even if you manage to define a metric such as "maximizing happiness" you are not out of the woods.

True, and I make no such claims. I would never be so conceited that I would think I knew what was best for all, or that any individual could. You see, I just told you that individuals choose what's best for themselves. Since we both agree that is an innocent notion, we could both agree what I'm really talking about is "maximizing innocence."

That's fine, but you also need to consider that statistically those that do not take drugs will have to pay for excess medical costs.

Only in your coercive system that both fosters and capitalizes on public guilt, a runaway vicious circle, where people force each other at gunpoint into paying for the irresponsible healthy decisions of still others.

Accepting these costs is by modern ethical standards a moral imperative –

Ethical standards are not legitimate merely because they are modern. Furthermore, they are not necessarily better than pre-modern ethical systems, of which there are many and various.

Sorry, Hegel! I'd call your viewpoint childish, but it doesn't rise to that level.

Unless you are advocating a complete dissolution of all human societies and groups,

I'm not.

As for your statement that all individuals empirically experience the world differently - that is at best unsubstantiated.

Well, we have two individuals right here, don't we? You and I. We can empirically test just how "unsubstantiated" my statement is. Right now I am chewing a modest assortment of chips. Are you? If so, may I ask, do you find them agreeable? Because I am making a decision to chew them slowly and taste the spices that line their edges, a most satisfying experience. I do not choose to eat them quickly, like others might do. If you are experiencing the exact same thing, my next question is, does your ankle hurt a little bit as well? I sprained mine twice in one week a couple of years ago and I'm not sure it ever fully healed. Sometimes I just notice that it feels a little bad. Oh! And do you have your headphones on? I just put mine on, so did you just now experience putting yours on? I am listening to music, and because I am using headphones, I am respecting the privacy of others near me. Are there others near you? If so, what do they look like? I wonder if the same person sitting next to me is also sitting next to you.

Oh, now this is quite childish, isn't it! Me going on about such minutiae that have no relevance to your comment. Obvious minutiae, aren't they? So puerile of me, to bring them up.

Nevermind the fact that when I said "chips" you probably at first thought of the European variety and not the American. But, perhaps you did think of the American? You see, I don't know, because I'm not you, and I do not experience your thoughts. Therefore, I experience the world quite differently than you do. Indeed, I experience you differently than you do. Well, you are part of the world, aren't you?

Wonderfully juvenile information here. The beginnings of empathy and respect for each other's liberty. The capacity for honest human experience, regardless of culture, language, and government, at all ages, is really quite astonishing. We have authentic human innocence now in this moment, something that many people seem to lose as they grow up in societies that feed off guilt.

What science can do is give an explanation of the physical processes of morality, but it cannot dictate what we should do with it.

No, no dictation. Science is not a system of dictation. Quite the opposite, it is a system of observation, of patient listening and honest consideration. A fearless innocence.

131. Executing Saddam Hussein was an Act of Vandalism

Comment #15931 by Sancus on January 3, 2007 at 10:19 pm

From denoir

One final comment – regarding science and politics. Science is about finding truth about how the universe works. It should not and cannot be normative – i.e decide which truths are important and which are not. That is for the society as a whole to decide.

No, it's for the individual to decide, and not at the expense of other individuals to decide. Given that all individuals empirically experience the world differently, this is furthermore a scientifically normative view.

132. If they preach the cause of the poor, they're my people

Comment #15927 by Sancus on January 3, 2007 at 9:52 pm

Great post, Cholmonedeley, and I like that phrase coinage.

If those on the left need moral leadership, they should follow those who lead by example, not by legislation. To complement this, it wouldn't hurt to stop and look within from time to time. The sooner the confused left-leaning atheists understand this, the clearer their moral decisions will be.

133. What are you optimistic about? Why?

Comment #15766 by Sancus on January 2, 2007 at 5:41 pm

John Phillips, thank you for that very thoughtful reply.

Yours seems like an honest way of looking at children's thinking. What is conspicuously absent from your post, however, is the concept of faith. It does not seem that faith, the rejection of reason, is an intrinsically childhood practice. Faith is not an incorrect theory, much less a juvenile one, because it is not even a theory. You appear to agree that "childish theory" does not mean the rejection of reason.

So with this in mind, I ask again, why is Dawkins associating childhood with religion?

134. What are you optimistic about? Why?

Comment #15697 by Sancus on January 2, 2007 at 5:51 am

Okay, John Pritzlaff, then please help me interpret it.

What is the connection Dawkins is making between childhood and religious superstition?

135. Divided by a common language: Richard Dawkins clarifies his position

Comment #15663 by Sancus on January 1, 2007 at 10:54 pm

This blogger seems eager to use our common language to separate the UK from its binge-drinking problem. Either that or all those news stories and documentaries from the BBC about binge-drinking are incorrect.

Oh well, I'll still listen to the beeb, even if I can't understand it. :)

136. What are you optimistic about? Why?

Comment #15640 by Sancus on January 1, 2007 at 6:45 pm

Richard, you talk about raising consciousness about child indoctrination, how it should grate our ears like fingernails on a blackboard when someone says "Christian child" or "Muslim child." Now you are describing some views about the universe as childish. Can you have it both ways?

You look forward to the end of "juvenile superstition." Does this mean you want to keep some superstitions that are not juvenile? Did you mean to use "juvenile" as a general pejorative, or are you suggesting that children are superstitious? What connection are you trying to make between childhood and superstition?

The final words of your optimistic declaration grate my ears more than "Christian child" does. Instead of merely labeling specific children with religion and other superstitious viewpoints, you label all children as superstitious.

137. Left Behind: Eternal Forces on The Daily Show

Comment #15501 by Sancus on December 31, 2006 at 9:53 pm

From the video:

How do they capture young people? Other than literally?

Key phrase! Indoctrination of children requires their literal physical capture and compulsory attendance.

138. Ghosts in the Machine

Comment #15498 by Sancus on December 31, 2006 at 9:29 pm

Janus, children are not necessarily pathetic, stupid, or postmodernists. I may be out on a limb here, but I suspect most of them do not make you want to puke, either.

Please refrain from calling philosophies you don't agree with child-like.

139. A Mission to Convert

Comment #15494 by Sancus on December 31, 2006 at 8:33 pm

denoir,

Bringing up Marx, Stalin, Mao or any other immoral atheists as an argument for religion as a source of morality is a sequence of logical fallacies. First we have the association fallacy (If P subset of S,T then S subset of T). This is an equivalent argument:
Marx, Stalin and Mao all have the letter "a" in their first name. Hence people that have "b" in their first name are moral.

The fact that they were atheists and immoral can only implicate that some atheists are immoral or that not atheists are moral. It can in no way imply that theists are moral.

They were not merely individuals who may have been immoral. They used moral philosophy to take control of states and cause their systemic collapse, leading to a minimum of a half century of global instability.

If you prefer, instead of saying Marx, Stalin, and Mao, I will say Marxism, Stalinism, and Maoism, which are major subsets of atheistic moral philosophy, but that is not important. What is important is that they are all based on Hegel. When Dawkins brings up the moral zeitgeist, he puts himself in close and dangerous company with these philosophies. So, it is not because they are atheist, but because they are Hegelian, and since Dawkins does not say anything that would discriminate himself from them, he invites responses about them.

The second fallacy is an implication fallacy called "Affirming the consequent" (If P then Q. Not Q therefor Not P). An equivalent argument:
"If Bob is illiterate then he didn't write the Bible. Bob is not illiterate hence he wrote the Bible."

Even if you would argue that atheists are immoral it would not imply that theists are moral.

This fallacy only applies to moral philosophies where it is accepted. You have already made a declaration of what it means to be moral by saying that this does not apply. I mention this not to express disagreement, but to remind you that the religious disagree, and no amount of presenting this as fallacy will reach religious ears.

It is the rejection of supernaturalism.

And that is not enough! There are very natural forces opposing one another right now in this world. They manifest as large groups of people with opposing moral philosophies and the potentially harmful means of executing them.

Couching one's moral philosophy in a vague Hegelian notion means to not participate in the natural forces of moral discussion. Worse, it is to timidly and sloppily appear to ally one's self with the most dangerous movements of the 20th century.

Dawkins is still a spectator in the moral discussion. His consciousness raising about children is extremely commendable in my eyes, but he has provided no moral basis to call indoctrination wrong except to say that children are "too young." That's exactly the basis that the religious use for indoctrinating and, when examined, quite embarrassing. Coerced education and indoctrination of innocent people is immoral for people of any age and at any time in history.

Dawkins does a great deal of help to reply to the existential question and give people the courage to deny God's existence, and I admire him for spreading that courage. However, there is very little discussion happening about morality. For his vague adoption of the moral zeitgeist, he deserves all the Marxist, Stalinist, and Maoist criticism he gets.

Although not the Hitler criticism. That one's unacceptable.

140. Fallen Angels Assault: Heaven at Christmas

Comment #15431 by Sancus on December 31, 2006 at 9:12 am

Thank you for that very interesting take on the individual, family, and state. It is especially interesting to me, because I favor the development of youth rights and what may be called families of consent. Lots to think about.

Things are much worse here than I thought. I just saw that Grand Canyon article. Of all things, the very icon of time and space.

141. God's Enemies Are More Honest Than His Friends

Comment #15404 by Sancus on December 31, 2006 at 2:52 am

JohnC, fantasy and lies are not the same. When one knows that a fantasy is a fantasy, there is no deception. Santa has very little to do with fantasy and more to do with parents lying to their children for their own amusement.

142. How Old is the Grand Canyon? Park Service Won't Say

Comment #15402 by Sancus on December 31, 2006 at 2:23 am

Just when I thought things couldn't get any worse.

These last two years of the Bush administration are going to be the longest two years of my life.

143. Fallen Angels Assault: Heaven at Christmas

Comment #15095 by Sancus on December 28, 2006 at 10:32 pm

Okay, denoir, let's look at this again.

Yes now, when they are not underdogs anymore. Where was a black or female president in the 60's? I think that the underdog myth is exactly that - a myth. I mean come on - Bush 43, an underdog? You went as far as electing the son of a previous president. Not that it is limited to the Bushes. With only a few exceptions American presidents have been people of extraordinary connections.

Do you think that minorities and the oppressed would have been able to get where they are now today, without the inspiration that mythology offers?

As for Bush 43, do you think that we would vote an underdog as our president, merely because he or she is an underdog? That's not even logically possible, since then the candidate would not be an underdog.

If we valued underdogs in a superficial way, like the way you describe, then we would handicap ourselves every time we faced conflict. That would be a remarkably stupid thing to do. Then again...

Well, I think you've hit on something. This may be exactly right about Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Bush, who handicapped both our alliances and military forces before going into battle. It is quite distressing, isn't it. I mean it when I say this is a worst-case-scenario.

A priori winner, not a posteriori. You need somebody that is already successful to elect him. When republicans want to show what a great man Bush is they say that he is a Yale graduate, successful business man, family man etc. When democrats want show what a loser Bush is they say how all his business failed, that he was an alcoholic etc

In short, both play to the a priori strengths. The republicans aren't saying "He was a drunk, a failed businessman and look - against all odds he became the president of the United States". That would be liking the underdog.

Of course, one would want to elect someone who has succeeded in relevant leadership positions. Although, I take your point, that both sides make a superficial go at it.

Our politicians do not really represent America -- half of voting-age Americans do not vote, which means that a good super-majority of Americans do not vote. I do not take pride in this at all. I support lowering the voting age and allowing more liberty to the young, but that is a subject for another time.

I have said that I think the concept of "nation" is on a ticking clock, so I'm not a nationalist. I have not even said that I am a patriot. I have only said that I care about my country and, in another thread, that I take pride in its protection of the freedom to think weird things and assemble peacefully, which is more than can be said for a lot countries, even the UK. How fortunate I am not to worry that I will ever be arrested for blasphemy. Much less killed, like in the supposedly liberated Afghanistan.

Is that not a healthy pride? Perhaps I should say appreciation or enthusiasm instead. Regardless, should we not make sure that all our countries protect citizens from being arrested for blasphemy or apostasy? And should we not come to the defense of citizens in those other countries who will be killed for something we think so important?

144. Fallen Angels Assault: Heaven at Christmas

Comment #15088 by Sancus on December 28, 2006 at 9:39 pm

briancoughlanworldcitizen, I do not support a renewal of Manifest Destiny. Personally, I think the very concept of a "nation" has a mortal life-span, so I found it amusing that you called me a nationalist.

To clarify, just because I do not support the renewal of Manifest Destiny, does not mean that I can't think it would better than what we have now. That should say something about just how bad things are right now.

The idea that the islamic world poses a credible threat to Europe, let alone the United States is ludicrous. Although I sympathise with your interpretation of their motives (at least of some of their politicians), they have nothing like the relevant resources to prosectute the islamic version of the neo-con dream.

This is very sad. Do the neo-cons mutilate young British women in order to prevent them from experiencing pleasure? Do the neo-cons start large scale conflict when their religious practices are offended? Do you think the neo-cons made a smoldering crater of Manhattan?

The neo-cons are very bad, nay, extremely bad people. I do not support them, and I hope that I have not given that impression. But the Islamists are worse and you will ignore them at your peril.

145. 10 myths - and 10 truths - about atheism

Comment #14979 by Sancus on December 27, 2006 at 5:35 pm

Logicel, by lucid dream I mean when there is direct control over the dream experience, i.e. realizing that the dream is a direct manifestation of self, that one owns the dream, thus enabling a pure and seamless creation of anything imaginable.

There seem to be many degrees of self-awareness in dreams, but I really mean a degree sufficient to enable dream creation. I hate to use the words "God" or "omnipotent" for I think they miss something important, but essentially I guess that's the order of magnitude of awareness and power I'm talking about.

Although I must stress again that those words miss something very important, if only the fact that I am neither God nor omnipotent, not even in my fantasies. I suppose in my dreams I could be, but that kind of conscious assertion of total control seems unnecessary, pompously authoritarian and obstructive, impressing no one and embarrassing me to my self. To say the least, uninteresting!

The forum thread is here.

http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3412&start=40

I'm always interested in hearing what you think, Logicel. :)

146. 10 myths - and 10 truths - about atheism

Comment #14934 by Sancus on December 26, 2006 at 11:35 pm

I have not read Jaynes, because I have not been ready to even entertain the notion that my consciousness may be more highly evolved or advanced than another's. Even testing the shallow waters feels deeply anti-social and I do not wish to categorically alienate religious people. Nonetheless, I cannot ignore it while remaining honest, for what other explanation is there for people who do not own themselves, if they are not sufficiently self-aware?

Furthermore, a rejection of self-ownership is not limited to the religious, but to many atheists as well. Even some atheists who embrace self-ownership nonetheless fall into a disturbing notion that their sense of self is wholly dependent on memes. In the forums I'm currently debating one such individual and I am nearly convinced he is incapable of introspection, a la Jaynes.

http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3412&start=20

If only he had one lucid dream, I wonder, he would not think what is to me a palpably weird thing. I do not know if Dawkins takes the same position, but it appears similar. Susan Blackmore has developed memes further, so I should read her next. What an incredibly stale idea, though, it seems to me, reducing not only religion but our very sense of self entirely to replication.

Is there no sense of uniqueness? Any personal uniqueness at all? No dim sliver of originality in creative expression? I am not encouraged by Susan Blackmore's articles on Edge.org, where she professes her quest to remove her sense of individuality, which appears to her illusory. How bereft of vitality that goal seems! Thankfully, and amusingly, I do not know how she will ever be capable of reaching that sad goal, because her brand of secular Buddhism is her own unique creation.

This is not the road atheists ought to be going, unless they genuinely enjoy going around in circles. There is even something disgustingly postmodern and self-contradictory about it.

jdaigle's notion of a wholly replicative sense of self appears to stem from or lead to the idea that morality is purely a social concept. That seems very weird to me. Since religions do not agree either, I wonder if this is why Dawkins appears unable to take the morality question seriously.

Harris appears to take a slightly different position from Dawkins about the nature of morality. Harris puts more emphasis on an individual's "moral intuitions" while Dawkins more on social norms and the "changing moral zeitgeist." Although Harris appears to be closer to self-ownership, I was disappointed to read this article a few minutes ago:

http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=harris_25_6

In the middle of the article he says something very encouraging, similar to what I quoted in the above post.

It is an empirical fact that sustained meditation can result in a variety of insights that intelligent people regularly find intellectually credible and personally transformative. The problem, however, is that these insights are almost always sought and expressed in a religious context.

However, he follows with something so remarkably wayward, as if to trip.

One such insight is that the feeling we call "I"—the sense that there is a thinker giving rise to our thoughts, an experiencer distinct from the mere flow of experience—can disappear when looked for in a rigorous way. Our conventional sense of "self" is, in fact, nothing more than a cognitive illusion, and dispelling this illusion opens the mind to extraordinary experiences of happiness.

Am I more conscious? More self-aware, than Harris? My goodness, is my consciousness more evolved than the Buddha? While that may at first appear sacrilege, and I still am not yet ready to entertain the notion, Logicel, you have confronted me with it.

My feeling of my self, and my command of it, has allowed me to experience things many very intelligent people do not even seem able to think about. I have flown over cities no one has ever seen, stood on planets in galaxies that could hardly exist in our universe, awakening powerful and soul-stirringly beautiful life with my presence, and they all know me. I've read the minds of so many people that no one has ever met. Even when I am not aware that I am dreaming, I have tasted many varieties of that anxious moment before death, that feeling, God please let this be a dream, and lo! my prayer is answered.

I do not know everything about me. In fact, I think I am just getting to know me, which is why I so strongly resist thinking I am more self-aware than others. Yet, I am self-aware enough, introspective enough, and I have properly meditated enough to experience many wondrous creative products of my being. They are not from God or an imaginary being, they are creatively designed by the very real me, I who am not illusory. If I thought I was illusory, and ignored my creative talents, I would miss out on so much beauty.

I wonder if this is why people who cannot lucid dream miss out: they think they do not exist. At the same time, I have to suspect that religious people are missing out as well, when they do not take the reigns of their spiritual experience and explore the true depth of possibility open to them. Perhaps someday brain-scanning technology will allow me to share my experiences -- it would be splendid to share such beauty! I am an amateur, but others are not even aware that they can be amateurs, preferring instead the ignorance of self and the cheap aimless bliss that offers. It is an intoxication. No ability to command, control, or create, because there is no one to command, control, or create. It is the dream of a slave to get rid of these things.

The slave wants to pretend he doesn't exist, because he wants to get rid of himself. He has no power, so he would rather turn his weakness into power by making ignorance of self an intellectual virtue, and then proceed to take drunk happiness in it.

Harris is not a slave, except perhaps to experience. This is not regrettable for an ordinary scientist, but it is for a scientist who wants to understand spiritual experience first-hand, in my opinion. One cannot be a slave to experience, if one wants to create it.

What do you think, Logicel? Like I said, I'm an amateur, and you're the only other lucid dreamer I've met here. I have never met a lucid dreamer in person. Sometimes I think the greatest impediment to exploring more lucid dreams is the fact that I have to wake up to the "slave morality" of society, of which I am compelled to be a part for my social well-being, even though it insists that some of the most beautiful things I've ever seen are illusory -- including my self.

147. 10 myths - and 10 truths - about atheism

Comment #14854 by Sancus on December 26, 2006 at 2:16 am

You just keep getting better and better, Logicel, don't you? :D

I had lucid dreams in mind when writing that post. Do you ever have them?

148. Fallen Angels Assault: Heaven at Christmas

Comment #14851 by Sancus on December 26, 2006 at 1:40 am

Part of the mythology - perhaps. Part of the reality - hardly. It is clearly shown by the many prominent black and female presidents..except for you have had none. There is a chance today - when those groups are not underdogs anymore. Or compare your social system to the one of other western countries. The underdogs don't seem to have much sympathy of the rest of the society.

A chance? The country was begging Powell to run for president in the early 90s and he refused. Condi Rice leads all the polls, but she is refusing. The two frontrunners on the left are a black man and a white woman. You barely know anything about America.

I'll get to our "social system" in a bit.

If anything, America loves a winner. The American dream is not to fight the good fight as an underdog but to win.

Yes, I thought that was obvious. We like to see underdogs win. It's not interesting to see an underdog lose. We're not cheering them on to win for nothing!

This has its origin in America's largely Calvinist past where the idea was that success was a sign of god loving you. The distribution of the extremely poor and the extremely rich in America is a good example of a subsequent effect.

Ah, I think it has its origin in the fact that winning is preferable to losing. (You and other people outside of America care about winning, too, right? Please tell me you do...)

The distribution of the extremely poor and the extremely rich in America is a complicated subject, but it does indeed have something to do with Calvinism. I've had to live in a homeless shelter myself. One of the worst experiences of my life, not just for the obvious loss of dignity, but because it was a Christian homeless shelter. Christian homeless shelters that tell their guests they only need to accept Jesus in order to be saved do not do much to encourage them to work out of their situation. Yes, Calvinism does indeed give the extremely poor a reason to not work, for if they're guaranteed heaven, they can live out the rest of their lives doing nothing and feel that's okay, and if they're not guaranteed heaven, they have no hope anyway. It's lose-lose and it's their own fault for believing something so ridiculous.

Interesting that the two richest Americans are giving away all their money. Is it any coincidence they are both atheists?

In military terms, after the early wars with the British, America has never fought a war as an underdog. And there never was much sympathy for the underdogs that on rare occasions beat you (Vietnam, ongoing now in Iraq).

Putting aside the tremendously stupid notion that not going to war as an underdog would reveal something, and the genuine weirdness of your bringing that up, there was an incredible amount of sympathy for Vietnam and now Iraq. There's no way you could think something like that if you lived in America.

Manifest destiny (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifest_destiny) was the ideological framework that was among other things used to motivate a territorial expansion. It is however not limited to it. We can call it "American exceptionalism" or "America: World Police", if you prefer it. A defining characteristic of it, compared to a standard humanitarian moral interventionist imperative is the religious component of it.

You're proving my point for me by linking to that page. The first sentence says its about territorial expansion.

What I've found interesting in this discussion, is that you seem ardent on convincing me that, in order to be patriotic, I must be a Christian. This is puzzling because this is exactly what the Christians tell me, and they are of course plainly wrong. They seem to have convinced you of that, however, which is also puzzling because I think you would agree that they are sensationalists and not credible. Why would you listen to them? Especially when you know there are atheists in America who care about their country, and would be provoked to see you agreeing with them? You do us no favors by buying into their nonsense.

America is exceptional. You don't know why? You have not told me what country you're from. America was very, very reluctantly forced by Europe into the position of world police, as our late arrival to Europe's wars show. America would not be the world police, if we did not have to keep saving Europe from itself and worrying about its colonial dung elsewhere.

If there's anything you should be learning from Iraq, it's that America really might not be there to protect Europe again. How many times has it been now? I lost count after Kosovo, Yugoslavia, and Bosnia.

Anyway, you may get your wish now.

149. The Courtier's Reply

Comment #14785 by Sancus on December 25, 2006 at 4:34 am

Brilliant!

After all, a naked tyrant is still a tyrant.

150. A Mission to Convert

Comment #14780 by Sancus on December 25, 2006 at 4:01 am

At first, this appeared to be another sanctimonious defense of religion, but the author thoughtfully addresses the appropriately disturbing question of whether Dawkins' attacks on religion are at all meaningful.

Even what we mean by the world being better off is conditioned by our religious inheritance. What most of us in the West mean—and what Dawkins, as revealed by his own Ten Commandments, means—is a world in which individuals are free to express their thoughts and passions and to develop their talents so long as these do not infringe on the ability of others to do so. But this is assuredly not what a better world would look like to, say, a traditional Confucian culture. There, a new and improved world might be one that allows the readier suppression of in-dividual differences and aspirations. The point is that all judgments, including ethical ones, begin somewhere and ours, often enough, begin in Judaism and Christianity. Dawkins should, of course, be applauded for his attempt to picture a better world. But intellectual honesty demands acknowledging that his moral vision derives, to a considerable extent, from the tradition he so despises.[6]

In agreement with the final statement, I've used the term "moral leech" to describe Dawkins and atheists in general. At first, I figured it would be a meaningful yet playful pejorative that would highlight this glaring weakness of new atheism. Unfortunately, this weakness does not appear to unsettle Dawkins or other new atheists very much. Dawkins offers a Hegelian notion of a "changing moral zeitgeist," which comes dangerously close to historical relativism when combined with memes. The author expands on this footnote (emphasis mine):

[6] Dawkins would likely respond that his moral vision derives from either biological or cultural evolution, i.e., from the spread of "memes," his putative unit of cultural evolution. I suspect that biological evolution has endowed us with a rough moral sense; but this can't explain the kind of differences between Judeo-Christian and Confucian cultures noted above. As for memes, I see no difference between saying that my morals derive from, say, Christianity and saying that my brain hosts a "Christian morality meme." In any case, most scientists do not accept Dawkins's theory of memes. Lewis Wolpert's reaction in his new book is typical: "Just what a meme is, and how it is distinguishable from beliefs, I find difficult.... There is no distinction made between memes relating to belief and knowledge. Moreover, no mechanism is proposed for the so-called replication of memes, or what they are selected for."

Dawkins argues that Christian morality memes are not actually moral because they are not compatible with the modern zeitgeist. In order to do this, he must assume some very crucial things, namely that the modern zeitgeist is actually here to stay and will not be permanently replaced by another that is more compatible with Christian memes. This is a very shifty argument in light of the rise of fundamentalist religion. Dawkins should not expect anyone to accept it, especially because it is so eerily reminiscent of Hegel's influence on Marx.

Those who bring up Marx, Stalin, and Mao, when arguing with Dawkins do so legitimately. Dawkins dismisses these historical events as "sawtooths" in the changing moral zeitgeist that are not relevant anyway because these individuals did not do what they did in the name of atheism and were dogmatic to boot. Unfortunately for Dawkins, Marx also used Hegel's notion of the zeitgeist to justify his moral values. Dawkins is talking like a Marx in another zeitgeist. All the communists were not created equal. They all believed they had new ideas to offer the zeitgeist. What distinguishes Dawkins from them?

Is it the rejection of dogma? If that's all that's left, then the attack on moderate religion has failed completely, because moderates don't take much stock in dogma either. Worse, postmodernism waves its ugly face.

What's left are Dawkins' new ten commandments, which the author said amount to, "a world in which individuals are free to express their thoughts and passions and to develop their talents so long as these do not infringe on the ability of others to do so." Here is our point of contention! The author believes that these commandments come from the Judeo-Christian tradition (as opposed to another like the Confucian) but he is wrong. The Judeo-Christian tradition does not value individuals and it certainly doesn't value the free expression of passion, even when it does not infringe on the ability of others to do so. Dawkins sloppily concedes that our morality stems from Christianity through memes because he considers the existential question of God's existence more important than the moral one.

Both are wrong and through criticism they almost say it for one another. The reviewer is annoyed by the confusion and the fact that it's not happening on a more sophisticated level and Dawkins is annoyed that the existential question of God has anything to do with morality for so many people. When examining the meaninglessness of each other's positions, they are able to find a meaningful issue.

That is this: morality does need to come from somewhere, but it does not need to come from previous moral systems. It only has to come from the fact that individual human beings exist, and since there is no need to coerce them to do good things, we ought not to.