Comments by Quine

101. Origins - The BIG Questions: 2008 Skeptics Society Conference

Comment #243594 by Quine on September 6, 2008 at 10:48 am

I would like to hear Michael Shemer respond to the questions from Tumara Baap. Does anyone, here, have his email address and would ask him to post?

102. Large Hadron Collider readies for world's biggest experiment

Comment #243206 by Quine on September 5, 2008 at 9:35 am

Could this have any impact at all on believers to question their faith?

Depending on what's found, of course.

Not very likely. Whatever is found would be covered by the "Goddidit" clause of the basic faith assurance policy.

103. Large Hadron Collider readies for world's biggest experiment

Comment #243183 by Quine on September 5, 2008 at 8:48 am

This extraordinary feat of engineering will accelerate two streams of protons to within 0.999999991 per cent of the speed of light,

This must be a mistake, although literally correct. The number 0.999999991 is very close to 1.0, so the statement is almost the same as saying the speed is within 1% of the speed of light, which it is, but it is also within 50% of the speed of light because of the word "within." I suspect they want to say, "... protons to greater than 0.999999991 the speed of light," which is waaaaay closer than "within 1%."

104. Origins - The BIG Questions: 2008 Skeptics Society Conference

Comment #242801 by Quine on September 4, 2008 at 1:25 pm

Comment #242676 by BeyondBelief:

Still seeking the perfect faith shattering meme

Yes, I am also working on this. Remember that the 'perfect' can often be the enemy of the 'good' and what might be perfect to use on one kind of believer does nothing at all for another.

I suggest studying deconversion stories. I just finished reading God's Problem by Bart D. Ehrman, which shows what happens when you spend your academic life studying scripture and then come spang up against the problem of suffering. I am now reading godless by Dan Barker, which tells the story from the view of a very active evangelical preacher (Richard Dawkins wrote the intro for this book.)

People wake up when questions bubble up from the unconscious and become unanswerable by the thinking brain. This happens all the time in kids; they are told to shutup because they will understand 'later', in the hopes that they will forget about the 'later' (usually works). If you go back to those basic questions, like what about all the good people who are born into the wrong religion, or before our religion, or what about all those children who die horrible deaths from flood and storm, etc., you will find the memes to keep pushing.

P.S. This year I expect a flood of deconversion books by former preachers, ministers and other clergy. The groundbreaking books by Dawkins, et al., have caused a market at publishers for this kind of 'coming out' story.

105. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #242483 by Quine on September 3, 2008 at 9:40 pm

They took the open microphone goof off the CNN site. Here it is on YouTube.

Peggy Noonan responds.

106. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #242455 by Quine on September 3, 2008 at 6:41 pm

I am watching the Huckabee speech. Anyone watching this later, be sure to unplug your 'stupid' meter, else you will experience the blow-out I just did.

107. Origins - The BIG Questions: 2008 Skeptics Society Conference

Comment #242434 by Quine on September 3, 2008 at 4:55 pm

I registered.

108. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #242101 by Quine on September 3, 2008 at 11:38 am

.. literalism, seven 24 hour days, James Ussher and all that.

I hope so. A clear position of nonsense is the best to isolate the "rapture ready" from the rest of the population. These are the areas in which some traction can come from pointing out that reality based education in other countries produces young people who will take away our better paying jobs. It has to be phrased that way (i.e. how is that better for my or my kid's job) to sink in.

109. Palin's Church May Have Shaped Controversial Worldview

Comment #242001 by Quine on September 3, 2008 at 9:47 am

"Nothing freaks me out about the worship service" may be her position, but she certainly "freaks" me out.

110. McCain's VP Wants Creationism Taught in School

Comment #241101 by Quine on September 1, 2008 at 7:08 pm

It gets into other issues. Are reporters going to ask Sarah Palin about her position on Islamic families who send their daughters for sexual mutilation in hopes of preventing premarital relations? What about aid for countries where there are honour killings for talking to a boy? What about gays who want to get married but are not allowed; reverse shotgun? It's all connected.

[Edit: I do feel sorry for Levi, who, having knocked-up his underage girlfriend, had to face the Governor of the State of Alaska. Good thing it wasn't here in California ("I'll be back ...").]

111. McCain's VP Wants Creationism Taught in School

Comment #241046 by Quine on September 1, 2008 at 4:14 pm

Obama has instructed his people that he wants the privacy of the candidate's children upheld. In this case, I don't see how they are going to be able to do that. Are they going to take all questions of teen sex education, contraception, plan-B, abortion and pregnancy off the table? For years the left has been saying that "abstinence only" was unrealistic, and the right has answered back that it is realistic if you are raised with the proper family values. Looks like that line just got much harder to walk.

112. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #241034 by Quine on September 1, 2008 at 3:30 pm

Oh David, whence evil?

(Looks like I will have to keep chasing, regardless of thread subject. )

113. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #241007 by Quine on September 1, 2008 at 1:34 pm

Comment #241004 by Mark Jones:

Is this a fair use of the term?

I would say yes, and it is also useful. Often it is difficult to explain the difference between not believing in the existence of something and asserting the case for the definite non-existence of something. As Richard Dawkins likes to pull in Poseidon to show religious people what it is like not to believe, I add to that the discussion with them as to the need for them to prove that there is no such being outside of mythology.

For some, it sinks in that they do not need to prove the non-existence in order to be justified in not believing; they get the glimmer of the clue that Atheism is the background from which the foreground requires evidence. For others, there remains the blank stare, but some tiny doubt may be seeded.

114. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #240995 by Quine on September 1, 2008 at 11:53 am

I would not worry too much about winning, as in winning or losing the debates. Religion does not play by the rules of reason, so you can't expect to 'win' but there is still important value in the introduction of doubt. Religion becomes particularly dangerous when there is a perception of consensus. That is when laws will be passed that assume agreement about what people should and should not be allowed to do because "everybody knows" what divine will is in the matter. Having people stand up and say that religion is bogus breaks this perception of consensus, even if few religious come over officially.

115. Theocratic Sect Prays for Real Armageddon

Comment #240648 by Quine on August 31, 2008 at 7:13 pm

Another McVeigh class dangerous nut case?

116. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #240510 by Quine on August 31, 2008 at 2:37 pm

Yes, Richard, she did fine. As you know from being there, if you go on Steve's show, you are going to be roasted. Those who play along come out better. Very few can best him at his game. Guests like Lori are stuck trying not to harm their organizations, which ties their hands to some extent. When Steve asked her what Atheists yell, I would have liked her to answer, "come back latter, and if you are good enough, maybe you can find out." However, she let him do his thing, which was the best.

His piece was full of subtle digs at the religious, besides the overt bombast parody of playing a religious idiot. The first part about taking "God" out of the Federal Government was a wack at the "Good without God is o" meme that is going around. There were several others (prayers not answered), as well as the straight open criticism of the Democratic party for pandering. Just take a deep breath; it will be fine.

117. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #240493 by Quine on August 31, 2008 at 2:19 pm

Wasn't that already going about informed consent on one of the ethics threads?

118. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #240478 by Quine on August 31, 2008 at 2:03 pm

Kidding aside, what people yell during sex, and why, is an interesting scientific question (relates to what parts of the brain get control during what situations). Perhaps it is something the Kinsey Institute could take up in future research. I can't translate "Oh God!" into all mammalian species, but I have certainly heard it enough from cats.

119. God Only SEEMS Nonexistent!

Comment #240416 by Quine on August 31, 2008 at 1:04 pm

Comment #240389 by Diacanu:

The bit about god killing first born children was a dead giveaway.

The images of deformed babies should get through, if nothing else.

120. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #240411 by Quine on August 31, 2008 at 12:58 pm

Steve's argument about what Atheists yell during sex beats anything I have ever heard from any theologian.

121. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #240378 by Quine on August 31, 2008 at 12:19 pm

Comment #240354 by J Mac:

Good luck Quine, while I haven't read everything by Lewis I have yet to read anything that warrants a refutation.

I agree that such refutation would be no great intellectual accomplishment, however, so many persons (usually Christians) think that there is some kind of intellectual 'there' there; the reference by Francis Collins comes to mind. It seems to me that ignoring him due to the lightweight nature of the actual content of his argument is not working because it assumes too much capability of critical thought in the public. Some will argue that paying Lewis any attention will give him too much credit, but that is why it is a good use of time for those of us who do not have an official academic reputation. I am simply tired of having him trotted out, as if a reference by the local minister or media commentator to Lewis wraps him or her in the august robes of the "smart people."

122. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #240350 by Quine on August 31, 2008 at 11:33 am

Comment #240335 by ColdFusionLazarus:

I believe that C.S. Lewis says that humanity's search for this absolute morality is evidence of god's existence.

Because of an ongoing discussion (at some point it will go up on my blog) I am going to be taking apart the C. S. Lewis scaffolding that so many believers think is supporting their positions. I would appreciate any links others may have to refutations of Lewis.

Thanks.

123. Genesis and the origin of the Origin of the species

Comment #240299 by Quine on August 31, 2008 at 9:57 am

Yes, this is drivel, but it may well be effective.

It is effective because it sounds like it answers the questions in the ears of those who do not even understand the basics of the debate. That is the reason we must answer and hammer down this 'logical' garbage. Sacks is educated enough to know better, so not letting him get away with this is our challenge.

124. Animal Intelligence and the Evolution of the Human Mind

Comment #240027 by Quine on August 30, 2008 at 7:32 pm

Laurie, this should fix it.

125. Animal Intelligence and the Evolution of the Human Mind

Comment #239954 by Quine on August 30, 2008 at 3:55 pm

I predict you are going to see more and more of this data as our ability to do FMRI on the cognitive processes of other species continues to advance. The trend is to close the gaps on the way to a continuum of consciousness. If so, will the churches have to start baptizing dolphins? How do you, exactly, do that?

126. McCain's VP Wants Creationism Taught in School

Comment #239946 by Quine on August 30, 2008 at 3:34 pm

I was confident that McCain would pick a woman for VP, but thought it would probably be Kay Bailey Hutchison. Palin got her start going to those PTA meetings to see to it that kids (she now has five) got the kind of education that did not stray from her conservative views. Yes, she needs to be pinned-down on the Kitzmiller issues at every stop on the campaign trail, until she admits her agenda, and it is exposed to the light of day.

127. A flea we missed?

Comment #239933 by Quine on August 30, 2008 at 3:13 pm

Comment #239742 by David A Robertson:

You talk about the 'scientific method' as though it were self-evidently the only source of certainty and truth. You adopt the philosophy of logical positivism which is inherently self contradictory - because the statement that the only truth is that which can be demonstrated by scientific empirical evidence, is itself a statement that is not empirical or scientific.

I see that MPhil has taken you to task on logical positivism, which is one of those 'isms that we don't need in order to see that theism cannot stand on its own legs. We are going to have to tell you, again and again, until it sinks in that Atheism being true is not the issue; the issue is that theism does not have the evidence to be regarded as true.

Now that you are back, I will ask you what I have been asking others who either were you or could just as well have been: where does evil come from?

Also, how about helping txpiper out on one I asked, but he bailed out on answering:

Suppose there are two friends, Anjika and Baljinder, who are Hindu and Sikh respectively. If they get together and start talking about their supernatural beliefs, how can they know when one or the other is correct faced with the simple fact that the supernatural is not subject to objective testing?

Well, what do you say? You have kicked around a straw man stuffed with logical positivism, what do you have for actual justification of your positions?

128. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #239531 by Quine on August 29, 2008 at 10:09 pm

Youknow, BigBird, from time to time I want to encourage others to stop feeding you, and wonder how new people can figure out that you are not a troll, but then in the middle of some long winded blow-by you come out with something like:

Comment #239520 by Teratornis:

As Napoleon said, the purpose of religion is to stop the poor from murdering the rich.

and I think what a great contribution you could make if you just went out and found an editor.

129. A Teacher on the Front Line as Faith and Science Clash

Comment #239246 by Quine on August 29, 2008 at 10:05 am

I can see some use for NOMA in this context. How else is the teacher going to dodge the scientific question of how Santa Clause can deliver all those toys to all those good little girls and boys around the world in just 24 hours given the basic air resistance to supersonic motion (especially with those reindeer antlers causing turbulence disrupting a uniform Reynolds number)?

130. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #238972 by Quine on August 28, 2008 at 8:25 pm

I'm seriously considering just not voting this year. I guess I could always write in Neil Degrasse-Tyson, Lawrence Krauss, or PZ Myers, or something.

Don, if you live in a state that is not going to be close, go right ahead. It is one of the few (very few) good things about the stupid electoral system.

131. It's no wonder evangelical atheists need to shout so loud

Comment #238838 by Quine on August 28, 2008 at 4:27 pm

Comment #238791 by PeterMcKellar:

Geneticists died for your spins.

Nicely done, Peter. It was fun to read.

132. Museum in censorship row over Darwin sign

Comment #238731 by Quine on August 28, 2008 at 2:10 pm

Helping natural science museums resist censorship would be a good RD Foundation cause, in general.

133. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #238707 by Quine on August 28, 2008 at 1:40 pm

After moving to the town where I was born, my father decided to become active in party politics. He went to a local Democratic Party, meeting, where they began with a prayer; he walked out, and that was that.

P.S. When Thomas Jefferson was working to make sure that no official test of religion was required for public office, he argued that such tests just institutionalize hypocrisy. It appears he was correct, yet again.

134. A Teacher on the Front Line as Faith and Science Clash

Comment #238593 by Quine on August 28, 2008 at 11:54 am

Quine,
To the religious, their version of NOMA is essentially YCTM, "You can't touch me!"

That's fine, as long as they keep their religious texts in the fiction section next to the (more popular [Edit: and more logically self consistent]) Harry Potter series.

135. A Teacher on the Front Line as Faith and Science Clash

Comment #238572 by Quine on August 28, 2008 at 11:27 am

I ask those on this thread to actually read Gould's essay on NOMA. It is clear that he did not foresee religion being restricted to only the scope of fantasy (i.e. 0% of the real world). His ideas on the limits of science are not realistic given today's real time analysis of thought processes in the brain (FMRI). As you read his words you will find plenty of philosophical errors and just lack of knowledge of the extent of systems science application to subjects such as the evolution of virtue.

I hold that it is not a good idea to introduce NOMA, anywhere. As I stated earlier, I do think it is a good idea (as per Bonzai) to defend by holding the religious to a 0% position of reality, if they try to use NOMA.

136. Science Has No Place in Politics

Comment #238122 by Quine on August 27, 2008 at 3:30 pm

I fear that anyone winning a science debate would automatically drop in the polls.

137. A Teacher on the Front Line as Faith and Science Clash

Comment #238043 by Quine on August 27, 2008 at 2:25 pm

Comment #237955 by Bonzai:

... but he was saying that they should.

"Should'a, would'a, could'a"; when I first read your comment I thought that it sounded like a couple of business partners who had just signed a non competition agreement, and one turns to the other and says, "to keep your end of the deal, you should shoot yourself in the head."

However, now that I think about it, I am seeing that you may have a very good idea as applied to the actual situation in which the religious folks keep bringing up Gould and NOMA. What if, every time they do, we did let them know that to keep their end they would have to take all interaction with the real world out of their teachings? No six day creation, no A&E + talking snake, no great flood, no parting of the Red Sea, etc. What would they do? I suspect they would quietly drop NOMA. Then Gould could rest in peace and we would not have to have this discussion again and again.

138. A Teacher on the Front Line as Faith and Science Clash

Comment #237995 by Quine on August 27, 2008 at 1:35 pm

Comment #237982 by root2squared:

But in a science class, if religion is put forth as an explanation for anything it should be treated with exactly the same disdain that any scientific theory with zero evidence is treated.

It is, actually, worse than that. Part of science is the quest to find out how much of the world can be explained without recourse to the supernatural. Keeping to the evidence is necessary at every step to answer this. Some people criticize science for rejecting the supernatural, but do not understand that we want to find out how far we can get before something comes up that cannot be from natural causes.

139. A Teacher on the Front Line as Faith and Science Clash

Comment #237949 by Quine on August 27, 2008 at 1:00 pm

Bonzai, I agree with you on the theoretical scope of NOMA as you stated. That is why I allow it for the invisible pink unicorn class. Having said that, I do not think Gould is being treated unfairly because he knew perfectly well that no religion practiced on this earth was in that class.

140. A Teacher on the Front Line as Faith and Science Clash

Comment #237912 by Quine on August 27, 2008 at 11:55 am

Comment #237894 by Sciros:

Quine, the question at hand is how to approach those students who actually need to be warmed up to the idea of evolution, rather than just "not driven away." The question of how to deal with students who have been indoctrinated against understanding evolution, let alone accepting it.

I start from the "not driven away" position. Yes, I would like to get to the "warmed up" area, however, I am very reluctant to support anything that involves telling half truths, or dodging difficult questions to get there. The three most important words on this subject are "tell the truth." This is why I stress consistency or non consistency with evidence as the supportable truth that establishes the necessary relationship of trust.

141. A Teacher on the Front Line as Faith and Science Clash

Comment #237890 by Quine on August 27, 2008 at 11:32 am

NOMA can be applied when the deity or deities are of the non-interacting kind (in there with the pink unicorns). However, as soon as there is any interaction attributed to the supernatural, NOMA goes by the wayside.

IMHO, teachers should simply state the fact that the evidence we find is not consistent with (insert ref to religious text here). This is not the same as telling a student that his/her religion is wrong, and in some cases may cause a student to look into the origin of the religious text in question to try to resolve the inconsistency.

142. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #237414 by Quine on August 26, 2008 at 12:48 pm

Comment #237396 by Mitchell Gilks:

Jesus would have had to have been far less influential than any of them, in order to be so thoroughly ignored.

Yes, I agree. Significant influence does not happen until Saul of Tarsus gets into the picture decades later.

143. Richard Dawkins on Talkback Radio

Comment #237368 by Quine on August 26, 2008 at 11:53 am

Buckle.of.the.Belt, see the about This Website link, under "Articles."

144. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #237332 by Quine on August 26, 2008 at 11:01 am

Comment #236799 by Mitchell Gilks:

I think you didn't quite catch my point. Joseph Smith, and Muhammad and such are historical figures, that we have records of, that are not limited to pure myth. Being loosely based on a real person, and being a real person are not the same thing. Do you not agree?

Please remember that I originally stated that I think that the Jesus of Christianity is mythical. You can decide what you want "based on" to mean. I recall being a small child and arguing with my mother that Superman had to be real because he was "based on the original character" (I lost that one).

Do you not agree that any mythical figure or god is also probably loosely based on someone? Or even more than one person. Do you not agree that this hardly makes those mythical figures real?

Mythical figures are not real, independent of the source of the idea.

Jesus is not like Joseph Smith, of whom we have records of that are not limited to exaggerated myths.

The records we have re Joseph Smith are much more solid, and that is partially because the events are some 1800 years closer to our time. We have records and writings for the early development of Christianity after the time of the historical Jesus, but very little independent information about his life. I contend that there is enough to make the non-existence theorists go back and do a better job.

If the character that Jesus is based on was not from the same place as Jesus, did not share the same parents, or relations, did not say the same things, and did not live the same life, then in what sense are they the same person?

Again, I am not interested in the degree to which the mythical Jesus is or is not "based on" the historical man who's religious following later evolved (in the memetic sense) into Christianity. I am interested in the process by which that evolution happened and how it has left us with all these superstitions and baseless ideas today.

Ah, he also definitely wasn't a white guy with blue eyes. So there would be no physical resemblance either.

Of course; so what? A myth can be anything folks want it to be. That is why we do not want things like science "based on" or otherwise controlled by myths.

145. The Darwin Lectures

Comment #236922 by Quine on August 25, 2008 at 2:26 pm

As others have stated, I do not care for the intro, but this lecture is great!

146. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #236777 by Quine on August 25, 2008 at 10:03 am

Mitchell Gilks, please keep in mind that I am only interested in what happened from a historical view. I do consider the supernatural Jesus to be mythical, and at the same time I am interested in how that myth evolved. A problem is that there is so much post facto filling in of the back story in order to satisfy purported prophecy that the insult to intellectual honesty makes one what to throw it all out. Personally, I don't think Bethlehem or Nazareth or being a virgin has anything to do with anything substantive.

We get used to demanding a very high level of evidence that is appropriate when folks try to stick miracle stories in our faces; we need to remember that a very much lower threshold is appropriate for looking at the chance that a small group of guys were wandering around in Judea proclaiming their own theology. It would take a tremendous level of evidence to get me to believe in Joseph Smith's Mormonism, but not so much for me to believe there there was a Joseph Smith and that he ran a confidence operation on some gullible towns people.

147. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #236631 by Quine on August 25, 2008 at 12:02 am

Comment #236630 by Don_Quix:

... and intentionally altered for a variety of reasons.

That's what I mean when I say "back filled."

148. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #236629 by Quine on August 24, 2008 at 11:41 pm

Don_Quix, I think we are fairly close in positions. I do not give much credit to the Bible stories, except in cases where the story tends to go against what someone would put in to support the overall doctrine. Also, there was the "growing" of the tale where it changes based on the date of the writing in the period of about 60 to 110 CE.

My best guess, based on the dozen or so authors I have read on this over the last six years, is that Jesus did exit as a Jewish preacher and cult leader, who thought his deity was just about to come back and give the world another real good wacking. After he was put to death by the Romans, and then time went on without the expected global wacking, groups split off (splitters!) and each came up with different excuses for why nothing big had happened. In the mean time, the Jewish establishment did get wacked by the Romans due to the revolt around 70 CE. This caused a theological vacuum in which new ideas could have a chance to get followers. By the time you get to 90 CE, the churches set up by Saul/Paul had collected so many followers from the Greek speaking world that pagan rites poured in, and the stories were redacted to provide for the fulfillment of the scriptures that had been translated (correctly or incorrectly) into Greek.

I had wondered for so long why if Jesus had existed, and he had spent this time with his close followers, none of them wrote anything down for future generations? Now, Bart D. Ehrman has pretty much convinced me that Jesus and his guys did not think there were going to be future generations, i.e. that they were it. In that light it makes perfectly good sense why nothing was written, and why, when the next generation did get there, everything had to change and be back filled with a cover story.

Again, just my best guess, and no I have not read Spong as Laurie suggested above.

149. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #236622 by Quine on August 24, 2008 at 10:33 pm

Quine

Thanks for that link you posted on Christian history.

That was just a quick ref. If you search around, you will find plenty of others that tend to vary in details, however, there is general agreement that there were several groups and the ultimate unification under Constantine resulted in suppression of "heresy" so most of the records of the losers were destroyed. I usually find that the Christians I meet have little or no knowledge of their own history, and I suspect the churches like it that way.

It is always possible that some jar of old texts will be found in another cave in the "holy land" and we will get, yet another, clue. As it is, we are stuck with some very limited sources (or inferred sources, such as "Q") and the churches tend to cherry pick to come up with a simplified story to teach children in Sunday school. Unfortunately, only a few adults go back and try to get the full historical facts.

150. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #236555 by Quine on August 24, 2008 at 7:21 pm

Comment #236407 by Shmeezers:

Oh, but I guess it is brilliant to just assume that chance was the author of the complexity of this world.

No, chance alone can't be the author of the complexity of this world. You have to also have a context in which partial solutions are passed forward in time so more successful chance variations will be cumulative. Take a look at this computer model of the emergence of complexity.