101. Executing Saddam Hussein was an Act of Vandalism

Comment #15807 by Ole on January 3, 2007 at 5:52 am

Spot on Richard Dawkins!

Btw, it was dissapointing to hear the new Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon's statement about the death penalty. As the South Korean former foreign minister he was used to capital punishment from his own country (last execution in 1997), so it was perhaps "no big thing" for him? (Let each country decide for themselves...)

Ole

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

Comment #15432 by Ole on December 31, 2006 at 9:21 am

Speaking of geology....
When they started the voyage of the Beagle in 1831, the captain, Fitz-Roy, gave Darwin volume one of Charles Lyell's Principles of Geology, which explained landforms as the outcome of gradual processes over huge periods of time.
On their first stop ashore at St. Jago, Darwin found that a white band high in the volcanic rock cliffs consisted of baked coral fragments and shells. This matched Lyell's concept of land slowly rising or falling, giving Darwin a new insight into the geological history of the island.

Here is a quote from Darwin's Autobiography:
The very first place which I examined, namely St. Jago in the Cape de Verde islands, showed me clearly the wonderful superiority of Lyell's manner of treating geology, compared with that of any other author, whose works I had with me or ever afterwards read.

Ole

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

Comment #15288 by Ole on December 30, 2006 at 7:02 am

suspend its belief in geology

????

How stupid is it possible to be?

Have they really started to "suspend belief" in science?

Geology now - who's next?

Physics or mathematics, or?

Ole

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

Comment #15125 by Ole on December 29, 2006 at 3:57 am

Sam, good article!

I don't know if you look in here, so maybe I should post this on your website or send you an email... anyway here we go..

You said: September 11th, 2001, the day that nineteen pious men showed our pious nation just how beneficial religious certainty can be.

(I won't go into all the conspiracy theories about 911, but only look at the hijackers.)

• Do we really know what happened with those men?
  
• Should we not question this also?
  
• What do we really know about Mohamed Atta and the other hijackers?
  
• What are urban legends?
  

105. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #14313 by Ole on December 22, 2006 at 2:25 am

David said:
Sorry Ole I cannot reasonably be expected to discuss your Granny's version of God as an old man in the sky with a white beard.

Of course not. I was only trying be a bit personal - it was only one example of faith that I have met.

Probably among the people in your church you can find that (childish version) as well?

I'm trying to understand your position. I don't find it coherent what you say. You seem to believe both in a very abstract god (close to Einstein and Spinoza) and a personal one (incarnated through Jesus).

As I've told you several times, I admire your effort here. I also understand that you are alone in one position and the rest is opposing you. It is easy to feel that we are trying to frame you.

Rest asure I'm not! Understanding thing is much more interesting.

It is rather seldom (at least for me) to meet people who really can defend their belief. Most christians I talk to, seem to shy away from questions about god. I often get the impression that they are lazy or only believe in belief.

Apropos "belief in belief". Have you read Dennett's book "Breaking the Spell"?

In the chapter "Belief in Belief", he talks about the lonly mountain climber hanging in a rope crying for help:
"Hallooo, hallooo! Can anybody help me?"
- a mighty voice suddenly replies:
"Yes, my son, I can help you. Take your knife and cut the rope!".
The climber takes out his knife, and then he stops and thinks and thinks.
The then cries out:
"Can anybody else help me?"

I'm sure there are many people like that, who only believe in belief. I also think you are not one of them. But, perhaps from time to time, you are at least doubting the belief in god?

To you, David, and the rest in this discussion:

God Jul!

..as we say over here in Norway (see my explanation of "Jul" over in the RD Forum)

Ole

106. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #14056 by Ole on December 21, 2006 at 2:19 am

David Robertson,

A suggestion for you. It would be more interesting ( easier to follow and read) if you could pick one or two of Torbjörn Larsson excellent points and address them more closely.

Ole

P.S.
You said: Sorry that is a caricature and certainly not the God portrayed in the OT. The choice is not between the two extremes that you postulate. Well if that is a caricature, there are people that have (or had) that kind of faith. One I knew was my grand mother (she tried to explain her god to me when I was ten and I think I felt sorry for her believing in a kind of Santa Claus in the sky).
I did not postulate those two poles btw, it was Carl Sagan. Maybe you should read his book?

107. The Trouble with Atheism

Comment #14045 by Ole on December 21, 2006 at 1:36 am

Compare Rod Liddle to Terrence McNally!

Here (on this website) you have one excellent example of a serious journalist (McNally) and the opposite, the unserious, hollow type (Liddle).

http://richarddawkins.net/article,444,Beneath-The-Surface,Terrence-McNally-KPFK-907-FM

Ole

108. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #13968 by Ole on December 20, 2006 at 10:28 am

David, I would like to continue looking at this sentence:

God is outside of time and space. (This is not to say that he is not also in time and space and that there is not plenty evidence for him there).

What I'm trying to understand is where in the "spectrum" you are in your understanding of god.

At one end of this "spectrum" you find Spinoza's and Einstein's God (as the sum total of the laws of physics). At the other end is the Creator in the old Testament - a male with a beard, sitting on a throne in the sky.

At his first lecture in Scotland (The Gifford Lectures, 1985), Carl Sagan was asked if science one day will come upon a demonstration of the existence of God.

In his answer he talks about this "spectrum" (he uses the word "two poles"). First he comment:
The answer depends very much on what we mean by God. The word "god" is used to cover a vast multitude of mutually exclusive ideas.

Sagan find evidence that God exists in the Einsteinian way.

About the opposite pole (note god in small cases) his answer is: Now, for that kind of god I maintain there is no evidence.

The problem with your position, David, is your "fuzzy" logic. You try to put your god into both positions.

Regards,
Ole

P.S.
More from Carl Sagan, get the newly published book "The Varieties of Scientific Experience".

109. The Trouble with Atheism

Comment #13928 by Ole on December 20, 2006 at 6:17 am

Some good posts here....

I could not resist this one: But, look on the bright side
Yes - do that!

Crucified Singers: Always look on the bright side of life.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Life_of_Brian

O.J.

110. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #13918 by Ole on December 20, 2006 at 4:39 am

David, you say:

God is outside of time and space. (This is not to say that he is not also in time and space and that there is not plenty evidence for him there).

A strange position you take. The first sentence describe God as essence (check Stark, Dennett, etc.)

The next in parentes says he is a being

According to Stark, it is the last one that sell. An essence ("outside time and space", a remote, divine principle such as the Tao) have no great appeal.

So you "sell" both?

O.J.

111. The Trouble with Atheism

Comment #13761 by Ole on December 19, 2006 at 10:09 am

David Robertson,

Don't you see that this Liddle guy is using what I tried to call a "media-istic" focus in his program? He was not doing a proper research. If he had, he may have paid the Nordic countries a visit (to look at how secular we are, etc.).

I doubt he ever will, but he may decide to have a look at your church in Scotland. If, would you like him to act like he did in this program?

Regards,

Ole

112. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #13756 by Ole on December 19, 2006 at 9:46 am

David,

You said: he is outside of time and space
Does this mean that you see God as essence?

O.J.

113. The Trouble with Atheism

Comment #13698 by Ole on December 19, 2006 at 6:04 am

I have a colleague from Poland. He was brought up as an atheist, but met his wife who was a catholic and now he is also a catholic.

I sometimes ask him about his church, the pope, etc. etc. but so far he has no good answers. For instance why would his church argue against contraceptives in Africe and let people die of aids? What about the pope during World War II, etc.?

I think my good colleague and other from Poland (there are many over here these days, and they go to church every sunday) find it strange that Norway and the rest of Scandinavia are so secular.

But ulike, France in the time of the Jacobines, Russia after 1917 and Poland after 1945, we have never "removed" religion. It is dying out slowly.
Well, we still have a few evangelicals, and also some new age types like Wiccas, etc.

Another fact about Scandinavia is how education have risen in the last 100 years.

Perhaps Liddle could take a look at these things?
(Then he should take off his "media-istic" hat and try to be serious.)

O.J.

114. The Trouble with Atheism

Comment #13667 by Ole on December 19, 2006 at 4:12 am

Strange...

I do not feel that Liddle understand how it is. I have never believed in a superantural god. Since we have no good name for that, I am an atheist. So what?

Do that mean that I believe in something negative? Or, that I'm part of a negative belief?

Is he really trying to understand this?

Why do he have to show us a nutcase (the one with the poster)?

We who have no belief in a supernatural, are we like Stalin or Hitler? This is really a cheap shot. His arguments are hollow.

O.J.

115. Richard Dawkins on the Mike Dickin Show

Comment #13570 by Ole on December 18, 2006 at 1:06 pm

Thanks, Andrew for the suggestion!

I did a search and found an excerpt of it here:

http://www.carlzimmer.com/evolution_2.html

...and a review said this:
This brilliant book is a virtual Voyage of the Beagle. Carl Zimmer's shows, with the benefit of a hundred and fifty years of hindsight, how right Darwin was; and how his great idea has had a triumph more complete than even he could have imagined. Darwin would have loved it: and anyone who wants to know why life is the way it is need look no further.

I've already ordered the book - a nice present to myself for this Xmas ;-)

O.J.

116. Richard Dawkins on the Mike Dickin Show

Comment #13537 by Ole on December 18, 2006 at 6:25 am

Richard suggested to one guy that he should read a book about evolution (or was it a primer on biology?) - anyway.

What would be a good book for understanding the basics of evolution?

I have recommended Daniel C. Dennett: Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life

(but this was to a person who have no problem reading such a large book - maybe not the right one for a person like the guy on the phone?)

O.J.

117. Richard Dawkins on The Sunday Edition

Comment #13361 by Ole on December 17, 2006 at 8:58 am

Robert Green Ingersoll was quoted:
All that is necessary, as it seems to me, to convince any reasonable person that the Bible is simply and purely of human invention -- of barbarian invention -- is to read it.

I have been suggesting this to many people. I even tell them they can read it off the Internet (then it will not be a black book with a golden cross).
I've also observed that many Christians perhaps never have read the bible. They have learned some bible history, they know only a few verses.

Here on RDN, I asked "our own minister" David Robertson to read it like a book. He said he had... strange (I don't believe him on that point)... or.. when someone get his paycheck from the church it is perhaps not that easy?

O.J.

118. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #13000 by Ole on December 15, 2006 at 2:25 am

Logicel,

Harsh, arrogant, impolite, etc. can sometimes be ok. For some people, RD's book, TGD, does a better job than Dennett's latest.

Maybe "Breaking the Spell" was too mild - that the "The God Delusion" was really what broke the spell? ;-)

Ole

119. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #12995 by Ole on December 15, 2006 at 1:49 am

I don't think David is the only one who find some of the posts here a bit harsh. Some posters have a bit of anger for sure. Why? Maybe we could address that as well?

If you remember from one of the QA that RD had in USA (Lynchburg, I think) - many people in the audience clearly expressen a lot of anger.

Personally I've never felt that anger towards religion, but I was not brought up in a faith. Like Jonathan Miller, I have never believed in a god. (When I was about ten, my grandmother, who was a devoted Christian, tried to explain about her god and I remember vividly how I felt - like a child discovering that Santa Claus is not for real.)

As I've already said, I admire David for taking part here. I'm also very fond of the (mild) way Daniel Dennett says things in his books and in interviews. We can learn a lot from that.

Perhaps some of you also could adopt more of the attitude of a critical thinker. (Look up some guides to critical thinking, etc.)

O.J.

120. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #12879 by Ole on December 14, 2006 at 7:00 am

David said: I find it interesting that the vast majority of posts on this thread do not engage with the articles that they are meant to be critiquing.

Well, in this longest tread on RDN, (thanks to you David) it is a discussion or flow of posting with new topics entering in all the time..... it is quite common that a long tread in a forum tend to "fork" (to use a progamming term).

Btw, (another topic, perhaps?)

Last evening, I talked to a minister. I asked him what the thought about a handball player who had told the press that she used to pray before every match.
"No problem", he said, "a prayer is more like a mental focus or a meditation".

Interesting how things are "adjusted" to meet changes in society ;-)

O.J.

121. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #12648 by Ole on December 13, 2006 at 4:30 am

Hello David,

Thanks for the answer about the virgin - no I don't want to follow up that subject anymore here.
(I've read quite a bit about it. And I think it is probable that there can have been a mis-translation - that Mary was a "young woman", etc)

I've just seen an interesting video. It is here on this website, but you can also find it on YouTube:

"Ken Miller on Intelligent Design":
(his lecture is about 60 minutes, followed by a QA session)

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

As, you can see - not only atheist (like me, RD, etc. etc.) are worried about what can happen to science if it is mixed with religious belief.

... a video I hope many muslims also will see!

Best,

Ole

122. Ken Miller on Intelligent Design

Comment #12645 by Ole on December 13, 2006 at 4:04 am

Miller is good!

He "picked" Behe "appart" in a very good and pedagogical way.
This is a video-link we should send to all who thinks that Darwin is only for us atheists.

Yorker, send it to McIntosh! I will tell our "own" David A. Robertson about this.

Ole

123. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #12489 by Ole on December 12, 2006 at 6:51 am

David,

Did you see the video clip from the "Late Late Show with Pat Kenny"? If you go 1:23 into part 1, you will see RD talking about the miss-translation of the word "virgin" (from greek). The word "almah" occurs many times in the Hebrew Bible and usually seems to mean "a young woman of marriageable age".

What if it really meant "young woman" and not "virgin"?

Kind regards,

Ole

124. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #12088 by Ole on December 10, 2006 at 12:53 pm

Martin, thanks for this info.

Does this book also talk about bishop Irenaues (130-202) from Lyon? He was instrumental in establishing the four gospels. Here is a quote from him:
There actually are only four authentic gospels. And this is obviously true because there are four corners of the universe and there are four principal winds, and therefore there can be only four gospels that are authentic. These, besides, are written by Jesus' true followers.

Irenaues was in strong oppositions to the Gnostic teaching. He even made reference to a Gnostic gospel which portrayed Judas in a positive light. (This gospel was recently revealed - see the Gospel of Judas)

O.J.

125. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #12023 by Ole on December 9, 2006 at 11:08 am

David, you wrote (in reply to me):

Do you not think it is a little bit patronizing and supremacist to think that if only Bach had been born after Darwin he would have been an atheist?

I'm not fond of the "what if" type of questions, so let's accept that the great composer J.S. Bach only lived once.

By observing how music change we can learn about the cultural evolution (and how the "Zeitgeist" change).

Let's take Bach and his sons as an example: It is easy to hear the difference between the music by Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach and his father Johann Sebastian.

In his later years and after his death, J.S. Bach's reputation as a composer declined. His work was regarded as old-fashioned compared to the emerging classical style. Initially he was remembered more as a player, teacher and as the father of his children, most notably Carl Philipp Emanuel.

It is not so easy to know what changed in the thinking - music, painting, and other art forms are a lot easier to study.

Was there a difference in what Carl Philipp Emanuel thought and believed and what was his father's thinking? Probably. The music changed (from baroque to classic) - so did the thinking also. The Age of Enlightenment was emerging. How influenced Bach's sons were by this, I do not know. Maybe some other know (and to some of you - thanks for the examples of atheist composers)?

David, as I've said elsewhere, I admire the effort you put in here. You keep this discussion going. I believe we learn from this. Thanks!

O.J.

126. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #11908 by Ole on December 8, 2006 at 6:46 am

WOW, this is really getting long.. (soon 600).

Let me just comment on one single point in your last article, David A Robertson:

Out of interest where are the great atheist composers, artists etc?

My favourite composer is J.S. Bach and I know that he wrote S.D.G. (Soli Deo Gloria) on his manuscripts.

To quote another musician, Miles Davis: "SO WHAT?"

Bach died 1750, and Darwin published his book 100 years later (1959). If you go a bit forward from that, I guess you will find non-believers among great composers. Why? Well, the "Zeitgeist" changed, Darwin's Dangerous Idea was working.

A composer that was inspired by Bach was Dmitri Shostakovich (1906 - 1975). I'm not sure if he was an atheist, I only know his music. Perhaps he was.

Unlike some scientists, contemporary artists don't come out of the "closet" and tell us what they believe or not believe. As a musician you often get payed from churches for your service.

I often play in churces (some of the best music we have are non-secular music). I don't tell all church people I meet, that I'm an atheist. Why should I?

If they ask me, I will tell them.

O.J.

127. Intelligent Design teaching materials sent to UK schools

Comment #11761 by Ole on December 7, 2006 at 6:12 am

These "ID theories" are also popping up over here in Norway. The other day in a local newspaper - the first time I've seen it there. It was a "New Age Christian" who had read a book by Richard Milton. He was attacking both Dawkins and Dennett in this article - calling Dennett a disciple of Dawkins, etc.

I sent a reply to the newspaper. Hopefully it will be printed tomorrow. As some pointed out here, I tried to show what a scientific theory is, by giving a few examples (Empirically testable and falsifiable, etc.) - and that ID is not a theory of that kind.

I ended the article by citing this:

intelligent design is fundamentally unscientific; it cannot be tested as scientific theory because its central conclusion is based on belief in the intervention of a supernatural agent.

(from the Nobel Laureates letter to Kansas State Board of Education, September 9, 2005)

O.J.