101. Beyond the Believers

Comment #18360 by Chris Davis on January 20, 2007 at 3:31 am

Are your feelings "true"? If you said you were angry with me, and I asked you to prove it, how would you proceed?

Ooh, I am a bit naughty. I confess that I hoped you might adduce emotions as an example of a non-scientific True thing. I don't buy it, and neither, I've been pleased to note in recent times, does our Dr. Richard (PBUH).

Because emotional states are not entirely mental ones. And even if they were I fancy an EEG could pick them up. As it is, emotions can be measured by a host of somatic effects alone. In anger's case that would include hypertension, adrenergic effects, ACTH, and the rest of the fight/flight, etc.

Richard specifically mentioned less hard-science but no less conclusive forensics that can confirm the truth of someone saying 'I love you'. Countless visible, nonverbal clues that we are specifically evolved to read come to one's aid. We're good at detecting falsehood because we operate on trust much of the time. Extending that, we're good at reading and projecting emotions because we're social animals and no man is an island (except Fred Mauritius, of course).

Emotions themselves are Scientific (in the comic-book sense I defined previously). They're hard-wired survival behaviours that nature gives us, essentially from birth, to allow us to respond optimally to situations without having to reason them out. The downside is that they're inflexible, and many are no longer valid in the novel environment we've built. Hence RD's exhortation to disobey these and other genetic imperatives in favour of reasoned responses.

But that's enough of my personal hobby for now.

Spart, if you're finding this exchange as enjoyable as I am, we really should take it to the forum, where we can ponder at length and even - my favourite - exchange diagrams. Other persons of goodwill can join in on topic, and we don't have to hunt through an old, cooling thread to find the bits.

Would you like me to set this up?

CD

102. Beyond the Believers

Comment #18278 by Chris Davis on January 19, 2007 at 9:17 am

iamb_spartacus,

On what grounds can we define people as good or bad besides their actions?

Bit utilitarian, what? Weinstein's final phrase was, you will recall, that 'to get good people to do evil things' requires religion. Meaning that people who are otherwise good - even extremely good adherents to universal moral principles - may be induced to do evil things by religion. Two points: a) Obviously, in doing evil things, they ipso fact cease to be good, and b) in their own minds they're still doing good, because they're faithfully following the dictates of their religion, perhaps sacrificing a great deal in the process.

The issue in all this is the disparity between religious morality and the more fundamental instinctive morality we all have. The former is often a superset of the latter, and may include items necessary for the propagation of the religion that run counter to instinctive morality.

The classic example being the 9/11 hijackers: these were certainly 'good' people according to their lights, but their faith (alone) told them that flying a plane into a building was a noble act.

Saying things like "any religion has a violent tendency" or "religion leads good people to do evil" as though this were more than cicumstantially demonstrable does not do the rationalist view any favors.

I'd like to prepend a 'may, unpredictably' to both the verbs in your quotes. The point is that religion, being a non-rational mental construct, can encompass pretty much any conceivable element. In many case they include a concept of an evil incarnate, which a follower is duty bound to fight and kill. As no such thing really exists, it has no defining physical referents, so the adherent is free to point to real things and people as a substitute manifestation.

Supposedly civilised US Christians in high positions call for the death of homosexuals. Several cases have recently been revealed in which women in Sharia countries face death by stoning for being pregnant and unmarried. And there's those hijackers again...

Religions are dangerous to the same extent that drunk or mad people are dangerous: their motivations and actions are logically unpredictable. That's scary.

You are welcome to your own ethics, but we are a nation of laws. How do you square this principle with the constitution, especially the 1st, 5th, and 14th amendments?

Wrong country, I'm afraid, cor blimey 'ow's yer father. Notwithstanding which: can you not imagine an individual or group so deranged by a loony belief system that their very existence is dangerous to life? Ignoring the propaganda that frequently seeks to make such people out of those who simply have a differing ideology, the reality is not all that inconceivable. If facilities for deprogramming them are not available, killing them may be the only option.

I'd like to come at the science question - especially the 'science doesn't have all the answers' question - from another angle. For me, capital-s-Science is nothing less than the search for (capital-T) Truth. The only truth, furthermore, that I consider worth having: subject to adversarial scrutiny, tests of repeatability and so on. Within that framework, if it's true, it's scientific; and if it's not scientific, it's not true. Dogmatic though that sounds even to me, I can't - sitting here - think of anything that is true but doesn't at least come within the compass of science.

'Hydrogen has an electron' is true. 'God is love' is bollocks, frankly.

CD

103. Discussion of The God Delusion

Comment #18269 by Chris Davis on January 19, 2007 at 8:07 am

@ScienceBreath

If you admit engineers into this sentence then scientists should be in there too. For example, a lot of physicists and chemists work on bomb design, often performing fundamental research as they do so.

I don't disagree. This sort of thing was at the core of my post: if we blame the average god-botherer for their part in extremism - rightly, I think - then no-one in any aspect of the sciences can duck responsibility for the nasty things that come out of science.

I'm not happy with this, but it sort-of follows, I think.

Fixing the science side of this equation should include, I believe, taking public funding for science out of the hands of the military (something I recall Clinton tried, but which was presumably reversed by the new hawks in power). More tricky is what to do about medicine, where drug discovery is so hugely expensive that only private capitalism can fund it. If the billions so spent actually result in a useful treatment, it's hardly surprising that those capitalists will try to maximise their profits - with all the problems of cover-up and damage that may result. I don't really know what can be done about this downside.

To fix religion, of course, you just have to hang all the priests.

CD

104. Beyond the Believers

Comment #18116 by Chris Davis on January 18, 2007 at 12:02 pm

@iamb_spartacus

Your points are very interesting. I seem to be becoming less of a Harris fan the more I see of him. Can I press you on a few items in your posting?

o It seems to me that accusing Islam of having a unique tendency toward 'terrorism' - nasty word - is to be both partisan and short-sighted - any religion has such a tendency, as best summed up in the line about good people doing evil things: a weltanschauung based on supernatural fantasy will do that to ya, almost inevitably.

o I can envisage a belief system so horrible that killing its adherents would be not just an ethical act, but perhaps the only response.

o Do you have a detailed view on the idea that 'humans require narrative structures to maintain sanity both as individuals and social groups'? I assume this is arguing for the Noble Lie, on the basis that without their opium, the masses will go nuts. This may turn out to be true, though I suspect that given enough bread and circuses they might settle down eventually. Whatever the case, I really can't square it with my own scrawny atheist's morality to support lying to the public, no matter how comforting, no matter what the alternatives.

It's not, after all, a neutral matter: without religion perhaps the public will kill themselves; but with it they tend to kill others. If those who can't handle the truth are moved to thin themselves out a little I can't say I'll mourn overmuch.

CD

105. Discussion of The God Delusion

Comment #18033 by Chris Davis on January 18, 2007 at 3:09 am

can anyone think of instances in which "science has caused destruction"?

Well, I'll play Devil's Advocate on that one for a moment:

The godders, and society in general, credit science with responsibility for the H-bomb, Thalidomide, 'Frankenstein food' and of course weapons, weapons, weapons.

As a science junkie myself I'd say nonsense - science just uncovers the knowledge. Blame - if you must blame at all - the military and engineers who implement pure scientific knowledge in ways we find repugnant, or make mistakes in their implementation that lead to death and disfigurement; or produce stuff that, though innocent, scares people who don't understand it.

But it seems to me that if we validly attack 'moderate' religionists for providing the framework for extremists, we also have to accept the indirect blame for the ramifications of science.

'Moderate religion' is harmless crap, and pure science is a wholly laudable search for truth. The problem arises in the ramifications of both of these, which is where people start dying.

Just a thought.

Ultimately, what these book reviewers seemed to sidestep was, once again, the point that religion stands or falls by the existence or otherwise of a deity. And it's clear there isn't one. How, then, can it be right in any way to continue to propagate this untruth?

Greer argues for the 'Noble Lie' that keeps societies together. It's a point, but I don't know if it's the point. Are we really still at the stage where society - deprived of their heavenly comfort blanket - will fall to bits? We might be.

My own feeling is to give 'em the Truth and be damned, but that's because I don't much care what happens to humans. If universal atheism really would lead to social sundering, it's something to consider, much as I hate the idea.

CD

106. Christian Shrine Needs Two Exits, Israel Says

Comment #17808 by Chris Davis on January 16, 2007 at 5:12 pm

You'd expect a church to be more intelligently designed.

CD

107. Creationism special

Comment #17719 by Chris Davis on January 15, 2007 at 4:41 pm

While acknowledging my bias as one who dislikes children intensely, I have to agree with Wolpert. I've long thought as he does on this subject:

It's not that children can't grasp evolution, abiogenesis or cosmology - at any age provided the subject is appropriately couched 'See Janet acquire a transposon...'. The problem comes when they are being taught these explanations on one day, and fed religion's typically seductive, simplistic, comforting nonsense the day after.

And being told on day two that the scientific explanations come from godless madman and will imperil their eternal souls.

I've spoken to several of the products of this particular battle for hearts and minds, and it's quite clear which explanation wins. Understanding evolution is easy enough, but defending it against religion's caricatures, blandishments and outright lies takes experience and a solid knowledge of facts that schoolchildren can't be expected to muster. Religious memes are designed to spread by infection, and they do.

CD

108. Judge: Men can seek damages from church

Comment #17244 by Chris Davis on January 12, 2007 at 9:41 am

How long before the millions of children brainwashed over the years by the Catholic Church get to sue them for all the other forms of abuse?

CD

109. Richard Dawkins' Report Card

Comment #16998 by Chris Davis on January 10, 2007 at 3:17 am

@Will in Aus
This is the Official Richard Dawkins website. When a book comes out with the early school reports of the great and good, and it includes RD's, posting it here as light relief is entirely appropriate. Thanks, Josh.

Books like this are amusing, especially when you see world-changing people being marked down or criticised for trifles when young. If nothing else, it may give comfort to those who have suffered similar faint praise or damnation, and gone on to become rather nice, competent people anyway.

CD

110. Questionable Mission

Comment #16675 by Chris Davis on January 8, 2007 at 2:35 am

Nazgul on January 7, 2007 at 8:48 pm
This sounds like the prologue to a not-very-happy-ending sci-fi novel. Oh Sh#%@# !!!

Actually, I've been thinking about the similarities between Maj. Jack J Catton and Maj. Jack C Ripper from 'Dr. Strangelove'. Are they by any chance related? I think the 53rd Bomber Wing should be informed.

CD

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

Comment #16518 by Chris Davis on January 7, 2007 at 5:06 am

Seems to me that New Atheism (I love the way this phrase is starting to emerge) may have a bit of a problem with stuff like this. Like the caricature of the loopy shrink, there are inevitably going to be some prominent atheists who have reached their position starting from a theist one which they found unsatisfactory, via a dedicated search for something more rational. But though they've thrown off the chains of religion, they aren't completely clear of a desire for something mysterious and wonderful.

There's hints of this in Sagan's fiction, for instance. Although a devout materialist atheist he couldn't resist putting in the final deist bit in Contact, where his character finds a perfect circle buried in Pi - a clear wink from the creator of the universe etc. Yes, it's just fiction, but I'd suspect that inside many an atheist - especially those who had to shake off religion first - there's a deist wanting to get back out. Harris strikes me as perhaps one of these.

If you really accept the total absence of supernaturalism, then the only path to ESP, reincarnation, advanced mental states reached through meditation and the rest must be via evolution. Given the huge survival advantage that would be conferred on a telepathic animal - predator or prey - then if brain tissue was capable of wireless communication I'd expect to see it all over the animal kingdom. Given that it a) would have to be an innate property of neurons, and b) would have to employ something other than the four known forces or it would be readily detectable, ESP seems to be ruled out from first principles. Putting it down as an emergent property of consciousness is just more special pleading.

Reincarnation requires souls, which is silly. Meditation, if it really has benefits over a short nap and/or autohypnosis, is another feature that one would expect to see running wildfire in nature because of its advantages. All of these things come down to wishful thinking by people who can't, it appears, quite give up the last remnants of mysticism along with their gods.

As I say, there may be a lot of it about, and it represents a vulnerable heel if atheism's spokespeople can't shake it off. This may be unfair to Harris, but any whiff of this type of woo nonsense will be pounced upon by such as Gorenfeld - apparently a theist with an agenda. Happily, Dr. Dawkins has shown repeatedly that he won't touch supernature with Harris' bargepole, and long may he reign.

CD

112. Not Yet The Majority But No Longer Silent

Comment #15480 by Chris Davis on December 31, 2006 at 5:40 pm

The problem for me with the Brights - and I have a 2-digit membership number - has little to do with the term itself. What I object to is that what was initially touted as a cutesy alternative to 'atheist' has lately become anything but.

The matter came up on the Brights forum some months ago, when I tried to inform a newcomer what being a member actually meant: 'Bright', I said, is a US-public-friendly synonym for 'atheist'.

Oh, no it isn't, a forum admin heatedly informed me. It's not necessary to be an atheist to be a Bright - all you need is to identify yourself as having a naturalistic worldview free from supernatural elements. Well, I knew that, of course, but the phrase had always struck me as a slightly wet way of saying: No Gods. Here, again, I was corrected by the Admin:

If you believe, he said, that a deity is a naturalistic, non-supernatural phenomenon, then there's nothing to stop you signing up as a Bright. There may be other Brights who disagree with you on the matter, but you're still a valid Bright. It doesn't matter how implausible or unlikely a 'naturalistic deity' might seem, if you believe it, come on in.

I was referred to the Official Bright Mission Statement, where essentially these precise words were restated. What had seemed merely twattish language was revealed as a loophole you could drive a bishop through.

I'm pretty disgusted, and so were many others viewing the thread who had clearly been under same impression as I. In the earliest days of the Brights there seemed to be no such soft-focus and weaselling: Brights are atheists was plain and clear, and it was on that basis that I - and presumably Dennet, Dawkins and many others - signed up. I tried to resign my membership, but I could find no mechanism for doing so. On reflection I might as well stay signed up. It'll hardly make much of a difference, given that the only actual activity that ordinary Brights are encouraged to carry out is ... to propagate the existence of Brights. It seems that Geisert and Futrell have created nothing more than a meme whose function is to spread. There's nothing else for lumpenBrights to do. Except donate money, of course.

So I reckon they're a wank, and I plan to ignore them.

CD

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

Comment #15163 by Chris Davis on December 29, 2006 at 8:36 am

On the evidence it seems my use of 'cowardice' and 'hypocrisy' is being interpreted a great deal more strongly that I intended, and perhaps it's better if I withdraw the words. I was being hyperbolic, but it's clear that I lack the subtlety to get that across.

Please note that 'smacks of' is supposed to mean 'appears to be', not 'is'. The appearance is in the mind of the godders, and it's a perception, not reality. I still think that the use of the euphemisms rarely does us credit in religionists' eyes.

I'd also like to make it clear that there's nothing but sensible practicality in keeping the fact of one's atheism quiet in situations where being open about it could have serious effects on one's health, wealth and future. Unlike the godders, we have no divine imperative to declare our beliefs in the face of torture, and if I'm ever placed on a rack by inquisitors you may expect a very pious performance.

It may be, too, that I'm biased: I'm not a Humanist at all. I don't like humans very much, and their ability to inflict pain and death on each other over imaginary deities is one of the reasons. In matters of my religious affiliation, however, I'm an atheist - a third-generation atheist at that, and more smug than proud.

I've met a few people who were genuinely Good, and whose religion was partly instrumental in that goodness. I consider their beliefs to be a failing: they would have been better people if they were able to be Good without the drive to please a deity and win a heavenly prize. In all other cases I believe that most atheists are better people than those who cling to deities.

CD

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

Comment #15161 by Chris Davis on December 29, 2006 at 8:06 am

JohnC

I'm sorry if you find my use of words like 'cowardice' and 'hypocrisy' offensive. I hope you realise that I don't intend these to apply in blanket fashion to all who shun the term atheist - I merely wished to point out that some atheists may be avoiding the term out of fear; and some may avoid the term despite knowing that it fits. Some atheists, in short, avoid this well-established, historically valid, technically accurate term because they allow the godders to set the context in which it's perceived.

And the other point I hoped to make is that the godders themselves are unlikely to recognise any subtleties - whatever they may be, I have no idea - between an atheist and a 'secular humanist', 'freethinker' or what-have-you. No more do I recognise any meaningful distinction between a 'Christian', a 'Lutheran' or a 'Presbyterian'. I have little knowledge and no interest in differences between these groups, because those differences have no bearing on my attitude to them - as opposed to their similarities, which count for everything.

And I'm sure that in the view of most godders of any stripe, an atheist and a Secular Humanist are seen as equally sinful, loathsome and damned. And why not?

If you wish to identify yourself as a Secular Humanist, let nothing stand in your way. Are you not, though, ipso facto an atheist too? And if you are, even though you may prefer the other term, would you reject the simpler characterisation? I do hope not.

I'm puzzled by your assertion that New Ageism - crystals, magic medicine and the rest - is a greater problem for society than religion. Seems to me that these little lunacies are the 'anything' in Chesterton's phrase, that people believe in when they drop deities. They're a problem, certainly, and must be addressed. But I'll consider them of primary importance only when the government introduces legislation to promote the teaching of astrology in special New Age schools.

Until then they're just another form of ignorance whose effects I can elect to avoid - unlike religion, which sets much of the baseline agenda for our laws and lives.

CD

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

Comment #15147 by Chris Davis on December 29, 2006 at 5:57 am

I'm concerned at the recurring notion that the term 'atheist' has become so stigmatised and nasty that people who are atheists should shy away from it to avoid stigmatising themselves. It seems to me that as long as we shun the word it will continue to be an undeniable insult to be levelled at us. Terms like Bright and Freethinker, whatever their other merits, are chiefly used as euphemisms.

Better, surely, to reclaim the word and wear it with pride? This tactic has been used to good effect by various groups in he past.

The point is that 'atheist' is a technically correct term for someone who rejects the god hypothesis, and trying to be one but still reject the simple, common, descriptive word smacks of weakness, cowardice and even hypocrisy.

Atheism has a proud tradition going back as long as religion itself, and includes some of history's finest thinkers. Using the term confronts religion magical thinking head-on in a way that the other terms don't. Among the godders, though, you may be sure that 'Brights' and 'Freethinkers' are considered to be simply nasty ol' atheists anyway, with all the implied stigma.

'Agnostics' on the other hand, are no doubt considered by godders to be little more than stubborn believers-in-waiting, who have yet to open their hearts to (insert deity here). Perhaps they are, sometimes.

There is no way that the believers are ever going to like those who don't believe. They'll always hate 'em (even more than those who believe in different gods). Euphemistic terms may comfort nervous atheists, but to believers will mean only that the stigma of 'filthy atheist' continues to draw blood. The term is already applied to us; let's accept it and work on the stigma instead.

CD

116. Woman beaten on Jerusalem bus for refusing to move to rear seat

Comment #15131 by Chris Davis on December 29, 2006 at 4:15 am

Two cheers for Miriam Shear's courage, but while it's possible to see this in Rosa Parks terms - brave women battling for freedom against oppression - it's not really all that black and white (if you'll pardon the phrase).

And it could be seen as moderation v fundamentalism, but as TGD points out, the former is father to the latter. Moderate, lumpen believers like Miriam create and maintain the environment in which fundamentalists lunatics like the Haredim arise and flourish. Isn't it likely that Ms. Shear would be just as offended by someone taking a leak on her 'praying wall' as her orthodox oppressors were at the sight of a woman in the 'men only' section of the bus - and for the same reasons? The difference is one of degree.

CD

117. Marine Life Leaped From Simple to Complex After Greatest Mass Extinction

Comment #10644 by Chris Davis on November 28, 2006 at 5:17 pm

This reminds me strongly of the Cichlid fish of Lake Victoria, who appear to have gone from a small number of a single species to a truly gigantic range of sub-species, body plans, and systems for living and reproducing, in a mere 250,000 years. In this short time they've managed to fill every conceivable ecological niche in the vast lake.

If I understand this correctly, the Permo-Triassic boundary and the lake both constituted essentially empty ecological spaces, with no existing competition for resources and niches - so the animals just took them all.

Which suggests to me that evolution can move at a cracking pace if it has space to evolve into without competitive species. I wonder if this ties in with the discovery, featured on another page on this site, that meiosis produces a much wider range of genetic variation in a single generation than previously thought, but via a controlled process rather than relying on more statistically dangerous genetic damage and errors.

Looks like the Discovery Institute picked the wrong century to fight this theory.

CD

118. Atheists Agonistes

Comment #10605 by Chris Davis on November 28, 2006 at 1:55 pm

David Mathews,

What a strange person you are. Of all the things for you to tilt at in your righteous anger, you pick on ... science? Science is really just the organised and formalised search for What Is.

Let me understand what you're so cross about:

- Science has provided new, more efficient materials for war. But is this the fault of science (and scientists) or that of the Military and the Politicians who demand it, and control the only purse there is? One of your recent presidents - the cute one who occasionally made sense, even though he was another bloody god-botherer - tried to break this link, and make a portion of science funding available for non-military research. The bunch of psychos running the place at the moment made short work of that one, though.

- There is one exception where the tail wagged the dog. Prof Einstein and his chums grew increasingly nervous about the possibility of the Nazis building atomic energy-based weapons, and called for the Allies to get there first. They did. As it turned out, National Socialism's WMDs were not much more real than the other guy's, but you have to admit the dire mess that would have resulted if they had been less ephemeral.

That's the only situation I specifically recall in which science actually called for a weapon. We've been living under the mushroom shadow ever since, but let's face it: that particular genie emergence from its bottle was inevitable as electricity sometime over the next few decades, and - biased as I am - I'm rather glad that if anyone has to have them, it's the West.

- And science has provided machines that eat fossil fuels, and others that eat hydrocarbons and spew COx. But is this the fault of science and scientists again, or of manufacturing industry and the billions wanting cheap transport and the other products of the smelly factories?

It's a transition period. Fusion's a-coming. And other stuff you wouldn't believe.

And what other sins has science committed, in your jaundiced and Luddite eyes? It's certainly provided the lineaments of gratification for almost every material desire humanity's come up with. But is that science, or the manufacturers and entrepreneurs who spot a need and pay people to design something that fills it? Or is it perhaps the wretched billions themselves, who cheerfully spend their money on all these toys?

Frankly, blaming the search for knowledge is a little too Genesis for me. At this stage in Earth's development it'll be hard for you to find a little spot where you may retreat back to the Iron Age whence I gather you obtain your wisdom. The Amazon jungle, perhaps? Maybe they have a website...?

I think you've chosen unwisely, though: whatever problems the world has now, the only possible solutions will come from science, you see. Recycling your waste paper and using public transport is as nothing to heavy industrial carbon sequestration, which is due to be a very big game indeed. If you're determined to stay out of such things, the best contribution you can make is to not have any children - they really fuck up the environment.

Oh, and: in case you haven't noticed, antibiotics alone completely vindicate all of science, so stop being a silly bugger or they won't let you have any.

CD

119. Atheists Agonistes

Comment #10603 by Chris Davis on November 28, 2006 at 1:45 pm

David Mathews,

What a strange person you are. Of all the things for you to tilt at in your righteous anger, you pick on ... science? Science is really just the organised and formalised search for What Is.

Let me understand what you're so cross about:

- Science has provided new, more efficient materials for war. But is this the fault of science (and scientists) or that of the Military and the Politicians who demand it, and control the only purse there is? One of your recent presidents - the cute one who occasionally made sense, even though he was another bloody god-botherer - tried to break this link, and make a portion of science funding available for non-military research. The bunch of psychos running the place at the moment made short work of that one, though.

- There is one exception where the tail wagged the dog. Prof Einstein and his chums grew increasingly nervous about the possibility of the Nazis building atomic energy-based weapons, and called for the Allies to get there first. They did. As it turned out, National Socialism's WMDs were not much more real than the other guy's, but you have to admit the dire mess that would have resulted if they had been less ephemeral.

That's the only situation I specifically recall in which science actually called for a weapon. We've been living under the mushroom shadow ever since, but let's face it: that particular genie emergence from its bottle was inevitable as electricity sometime over the next few decades, and - biased as I am - I'm rather glad that if anyone has to have them, it's the West.

- And science has provided machines that eat fossil fuels, and others that eat hydrocarbons and spew COx. But is this the fault of science and scientists again, or of manufacturing industry and the billions wanting cheap transport and the other products of the smelly factories?

It's a transition period. Fusion's a-coming. And other stuff you wouldn't believe.

And what other sins has science committed, in your jaundiced and Luddite eyes? It's certainly provided the lineaments of gratification for almost every material desire humanity's come up with. But is that science, or the manufacturers and entrepreneurs who spot a need and pay people to design something that fills it? Or is it perhaps the wretched billions themselves, who cheerfully spend their money on all these toys?

Frankly, blaming the search for knowledge is a little too Genesis for me. At this stage in Earth's development it'll be hard for you to find a little spot where you may retreat back to the Iron Age whence I gather you obtain your wisdom. The Amazon jungle, perhaps? Maybe they have a website...?

I think you've chosen unwisely, though: whatever problems the world has now, the only possible solutions will come from science, you see. Recycling your waste paper and using public transport is as nothing to heavy industrial carbon sequestration, which is due to be a very big game indeed. If you're determined to stay out of such things, the best contribution you can make is to not have any children - they really fuck up the environment.

Oh, and: in case you haven't noticed, antibiotics alone completely vindicate all of science, so stop being a silly bugger or they won't let you have any.

CD

120. Why Are Atheists So Angry? A Debate with Dennis Prager

Comment #10169 by Chris Davis on November 27, 2006 at 9:04 am

Interesting to see how Prager sidesteps the fact that religion is responsible for so much ghastly bloodshed over the years. Although this is really irrelevant to the existence of a deity, the superstitious are very fond of waving Stalin, Pol Pot and Hitler at atheists as evidences that atheism Really Screws You Up. (They tend to go a bit quiet about Hitler if you point them at images of Nazis cuddling cardinals at http://www.nobeliefs.com/nazis.htm, though.)

Prager neatly avoids this problem, however: oh yes, religion causes conflict, but only the false ones. His own version of fundamentalist Christianity has an unblemished history.

And how do you tell the difference between false, murderous superstition and the One True Faith? Easy: if they've ever done anything reprehensible, they're filthy, idolatrous pagans - regardless of how they paint themselves.

CD

121. Doubters do it from the pulpit

Comment #10156 by Chris Davis on November 27, 2006 at 7:41 am

Giles Frase wrote:
"After all, I am a failed atheist myself"

Sigh. If I had a gram of plutonium for every god-botherer who tries to demonstrate his street-cred by claiming once to have been an atheist, I'd be a plasma.

What flavour of atheism can this philosophical vicar possibly have tried? Not believing in god for a few hours one cold morning, at a time when puberty was starting to bite? Is it possible that he actually looked into the epistemological underpinning of atheism, and for a while had sound reason for rejecting imaginary friends?

Only to slip back into the comforting fuzziness when he concluded that there just had to be something...

CD

122. Backlash forces British Airways to review ban on wearing cross

Comment #9618 by Chris Davis on November 25, 2006 at 9:19 am

Having thought a bit about a 'No Gods' symbol I decided to have a go at making one. The result is here:

http://www.cubicsecond.org/images/web/nogosym.png

It's not subtle or clever, because I couldn't come up with anything that was. The Michelangelo image was the only well-recognised deity image I could find. The text is very short, and looked a bit skanky in the crossbar or the ring.

If anyone can use, it's yours. Suggestions for changes, edits or additions welcome. Other formats available.

CD

123. Backlash forces British Airways to review ban on wearing cross

Comment #9536 by Chris Davis on November 25, 2006 at 4:09 am

Re atheist symbols:

Yes, I think it's time that we atheists/humanists find our own symbol to get our point across.

It's a nice idea, but no-one seems to have produced a symbol everyone likes: there's the FSM, the IPU, the Brights logo, the big O and all the others.

Not easy to find a sympbol that encapsulates people whose commonality is that they don't do something. If there was a way to say 'No God', perhaps...

CD

124. Humans show big DNA differences

Comment #9535 by Chris Davis on November 25, 2006 at 4:01 am

This is amazing news. Seems to me it finally takes the 'random' out of the evolutionary process altogether: the range of variations in genome presented to Natural Selection is not, it seems, the result of cosmic rays and other DNA damage, but more controlled genetic adjustment and shuffling that is a normal part of sexual reproduction.

Very significant. I guess we can assume that this shuffling is far more likely to produce viable genomes than damage will.

CD

125. Godless America: 'Letting Go of God' Excerpt

Comment #9278 by Chris Davis on November 24, 2006 at 10:10 am

@9203 by Daniel DeCastro

A miserable reductionist writes:

You're entirely right, of course, but I have to confess that I flinch a little to read such things.

It may be briefly comforting to think that your quarks will probably be around to the end of the universe - indeed it's a nice thought. As is the knowledge the every breath you take contains atoms breathed by T. Rex, Michelangelo and [insert anything you like here]. Ultimately, though, I think this is a potentially perilous avenue of thought.

Because these facts are meaningless, really. They're not at all profound, and the same statements are largely true for any rock, burp, puddle or dog-turd. And they stray close to the type of magical thinking that assigns consciousness to inanimate forces and objects, and may even lead to them.

It's enough to be a random aggregation of warm molecules and electromagnetic reactions that can think, for a while, and obey the biological imperatives to explore and contribute to the sum of knowledge - to find your own joy while attempting to give some to others. That the cosmos doesn't give a toss for your efforts is as irrelevant (to that cosmos) as the delusion that it does. To us, what matters is not to let the former bother us, and to try to prevent the latter because it damages society. These are rules that have evolved for us, and although their cosmic significance is zero, following them will do the little we can for ourselves as a social animal.

CD

126. Matter and faith

Comment #9265 by Chris Davis on November 24, 2006 at 9:35 am

Starts out looking promising, but after a bit it's the same old story: if science can't prove it (yet), then God gets the point by default.

And if we can't prove everything, then we don't know everything. And if we don't know everything, how can we say there's no god, eh? eh?

You have to wonder whether these people apply such nit-picking rigour to their belief in the Tooth Fairy.

CD

127. Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and E.O. Wilson on the gospel of science

Comment #8968 by Chris Davis on November 23, 2006 at 3:16 am

@#8939 by walter

Actually, I think you have a good point here: Science does sometimes give the appearance of dogmatism, at least in the short term.

Perhaps 'stubborn' would be more appropriate: science will 'change its mind', but only when it's convinced that it's right to do so. The onus is on anyone attempting to introduce a new theory to prove its accuracy in the face of hostile opposition from the established order.

And I think it right that the established order should defend its status quo, because all of the facts and theories that make up the corpus of scientific knowledge have themselves had to prove their worth against opposition before becoming accepted. A new theory that challenges existing knowledge is in effect a late challenge to (apparently) proven fact.

So your dinosaur theory - just like, say, the notion that Helicobacter can survive in the stomach contrary to existing theory that the stomach is sterile - will have to labour long and hard to make itself accepted. It seems dreadfully unfair that the truth should have to fight for recognition, but such is the nature of the jealously-guarded scientific corpus: the gauntlet must be run in order to filter out untruth wherever possible.

Good luck in your struggle.

CD

128. Hatred (of Gays) Unites Jerusalem's Feuding Faiths

Comment #5411 by Chris Davis on November 9, 2006 at 10:07 am

Jerusalem - evacute, and nuke from orbit. It's the only solution. Seems to me that the city will continue to be a black hole of hatred and conflict between equally deranged groups as long as it stands.

Or it could get the the Chernobyl treatment: encase the entire place in a concrete sarcophagus (with a small door for archaeologists).

CD

129. Religions don't deserve special treatment

Comment #5406 by Chris Davis on November 9, 2006 at 9:37 am

Wonderful article, as usual from Prof Grayling.

Imagine a world run by such as Professors Grayling and Dawkins. Sadly, of course, the very qualities that make these people so ideal would lead them to refuse the job if it were offered. Oh, well...

Perhaps the most we can hope for is that one day we grow out of this atavistic desire for an Alpha Male - especially supernatural ones.

CD

130. Christian Author Warns Of Growing Atheist Backlash

Comment #4473 by Chris Davis on November 4, 2006 at 4:23 am

I, too, count myself as militantly anti-theist as well as atheist - in that I'll voice my opposition to religion whenever I can do so appropriately and without serious personal risk. I don't know, though, if I'd go as far as the American Airlines pilot ( http://tinyurl.com/ytbbx ) who told his passengers that all non-Christians on board were 'crazy'. No doubt his actions were applauded by many Xians, and not considered fundamentalist.

I do hope Os Guinness is right. It's hard to tell when you're up close to the issue like this, but it does seem to me that some sort of fightback is going on.

o Dawkins' and Harris' books are best sellers, and being read and talked about.
o At least some portion of the US public is waking up to the concept referred to in the 'Imagine No Religion' poster: that a great deal of war, conflict and trouble has religion at its core. And unlike purely political conflict, religious battles aren't amenable to diplomacy or pragmatism.
o Haggard and his ilk are being exposed both for the horrors they espouse publicly, and the sins they commit in private.
o Both the US President and the UK Prime Minister are out of favour, and their religious attachments and motivations are specifically seen as problematic.
o Liberal and progressive thinkers are coming to terms with the fact that it's OK to be intolerant of intolerance, even though this goes against the grain: no-one has the 'right' to oppress others, no matter how much they demand it.

All of this couldn't come at a better time. If the West begins to see the light, the world may finally lift itself a little way out of the ancient superstitious gloom.

CD

131. God Loves My New Lexus

Comment #4286 by Chris Davis on November 3, 2006 at 7:52 am

The remarkable think about Pastor Haggard's situation is that in a sane world there'd be nothing remarkable or negative about gay sex, prostitution or personal drug use. Only religiosity would be considered dodgy. And the hypocrisy of one who stirs up hatred against these activities in public while covertly indulging in them.

132. God Loves My New Lexus

Comment #4250 by Chris Davis on November 3, 2006 at 3:39 am

People are interpreting this article far too judgementally, IMHO. It's satire, and rather good at that.

The author's pointing out the absurdity of the Biblical overseer deity in the light of crazy modern society. Surely, he's saying, only a drunken, childish, bored superbeing could purposefully have created such a deranged mess (or, by implication, no god at all).

His martini-drinking child-with-sea-monkeys deity is a straw man, to whom no-one could sensibly subscribe. The alternative is to be found in Dawkins' writing. I think it's a charming, rather clever way to introduce the book, and I'd expect Richard to like it too..

133. Atheists should be louder and prouder

Comment #4242 by Chris Davis on November 3, 2006 at 2:48 am

@ 19 by Paul

"In Christianity, it doesn't matter what you look like or how much money you make. every person is equal."

Can you explain that with reference to Pastor Ted Haggard?

CD

134. Atheists' delusions about God

Comment #2543 by Chris Davis on October 21, 2006 at 6:51 pm

I marvel once again at the conceit that god is apparently so amazingly, hideously indefinable that it's impossible to assert that he doesn't exist!

Clearly this slippery inability to be pinned down long enough to be discounted is sadly lacking in the Cosmic teapot or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. We see the same defence being advanced by so many of the professional theologians who have commented negatively on The God Delusion: that none of the arguments and logic apply to THEIR god, and therefore don't count. Hurray!

135. Bad Religion

Comment #2220 by Chris Davis on October 19, 2006 at 8:04 pm

Actual altruism - a zero-sum game in which one party specifically sacrifices - may be less ubiquitous than simple fair play, in which neither side attempts to profit from the other's loss. It's this that forms the winning Tit-for-tat strategy in game theory.

136. Bad Religion

Comment #2208 by Chris Davis on October 19, 2006 at 5:09 pm

I agree with Brian, above, about the importance of Matt Ridley's contribution to this debate. He establishes clearly the survival advantage of trust and fairness in a society.

More fundamental, though, is the fact (as it seems to me) that no society could form without a basic moral instinct to trust others and play fair with them. I would expect that all social animals must evolve such an instinct as the become social - along with a good immune system.

137. The Need to Believe

Comment #1193 by Chris Davis on October 10, 2006 at 11:59 am

Rudolf Svidran's entire thesis fails as a result of his initial critical error: 'Where there is creation there is a creator'. He states this premise as if it were fact, but it's really just a belief - a piece of 'common sense' that seems elegant and logical, but is unfortunately wrong.

The 'creation/creator' issue is really a restatement of William Paley's famous watchmaker analogy, and has the same problem. Rudolf should perhaps not attempt 'The God Delusion' without some preliminary study: Professor Dawkins's 'Blind Watchmaker' specifically addresses the issue of the spontaneous rise of complex order from simple disorder, and shows that, no matter how counterintuitive it may seem, 'creation' - in the sense of manifestation of complexity without external mediation - is quite commonplace in the universe. It just takes a long, long time to occur, so that our fallible human senses are no more able to grasp it intuitively than were are able to conceive of continents drifting apart.

CD

138. The Need to Believe

Comment #1192 by Chris Davis on October 10, 2006 at 11:59 am

Rudolf Svidran's entire thesis fails as a result of his initial critical error: 'Where there is creation there is a creator'. He states this premise as if it were fact, but it's really just a belief - a piece of 'common sense' that seems elegant and logical, but is unfortunately wrong.

The 'creation/creator' issue is really a restatement of William Paley's famous watchmaker analogy, and has the same problem. Rudolf should perhaps not attempt 'The God Delusion' without some preliminary study: Professor Dawkins's 'Blind Watchmaker' specifically addresses the issue of the spontaneous rise of complex order from simple disorder, and shows that, no matter how counterintuitive it may seem, 'creation' - in the sense of manifestation of complexity without external mediation - is quite commonplace in the universe. It just takes a long, long time to occur, so that our fallible human senses are no more able to grasp it intuitively than were are able to conceive of continents drifting apart.

CD

139. Richard Dawkins on BBC 2's Newsnight

Comment #228 by Chris Davis on September 23, 2006 at 2:52 pm

Another piece of research that cuts right to the point is Gregory S. Paul's paper on 'Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies', to be found at http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html

From this work it seems that, contrary to the benefits claimed by religious leaders, religion is actually very bad for a society, and imposes a great deal of stress and damaged lives on members of that society.

CD