Comments by Barry Pearson
101. 'I despise Islamism': Ian McEwan faces backlash over press interview
Comment #198202 by Barry Pearson on June 23, 2008 at 11:10 am
#198133 by al-rawandi: I am reading your page now. There are several errors.I was comparing Islam as a whole with the Catholic Church. That has one Papacy whch is capable of making decisions for all Catholics worldwide, not just locally. Islam doesn't have anything that can make decisions for all Muslims worldwide.
The first: "No central authority"
-You are lumping Sunni Islam with Shi'a. The Shi'a have a concept known as Taqlid (imitation, or reliance on past tradition). This is a system where the individual believer must choose a Marja' to be his Marja'a i-taqlid. The Zakat is paid to this Marja'a along with the Shi'a specific tax known as the Khums. The Marja'a must be a recognized scholar (like Khomeini, Khatami, Khamanei, Sistani, Muhammad Baqir al-Sadr, etc...). Most of these people will have studied Islam and other topics in Qom, Iran. In this sense there is a degree of centralization in Shi'a Islam. However this is also region specific, namely Lebanese Muslims will have a slightly different system. The Shi'a centers of learning (where power is centralized) are Qom and Najaf.
I am aware of various concepts that avoid having the "reinvent the wheel" each time, such as Ijma and Qiyas. In fact, I refered to those on my "Paternity testing and Islam" page. In view of what you say, I wonder if they are primarily Sunni rather than Shi'a concepts?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ijma
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qiyas
#198133 by al-rawandi: 2) "Mediaeval Arabic Script":Thanks, I'll clarify that. It was what I was refering to, without being precise.
- The Arabic language has no seperate script for this period, and it has remained in similar form for most of its short life. The only difference one sees is that much of the Qur'an was written without the small vowels that reside above and below the script. This is problematic as they change meaning (for instance placing a verb in the passive voice). Thus all the i'rab (vowelling) is added later and was subject to the interpretation of context of the person placing these vowels in the text.
#198133 by al-rawandi: 3) "Reform Movements":Thanks, I'll clarify that. I was using "reform" in the sense of "The Reformation", which dramatically changed some people's Christianity from the norm. (Not necessarily towards "the West"). I tend to think of "Fundamentalism" as being an attempt to identify "fundamentals", often a reversion to original texts and interpretations, as a reaction against pluralism, and I don't include this as "reform". I tend to think of Wahhabism as more like fundamentalism than reform. I don't think I refered to Deobandism and Salafism at all, but I note that Salafism is closely related to Wahhabism.
- Your assumption here is that "reform" means toward a more western understanding of the world. Wahhabism, Deobandism, Salafism, and other "fundamentalist" movements, all came as "reforms" of the faith.
I'll refer to "Divisions of Islam" in the links about "Reform". The following page mentions Wahhabism, Deobandism, and Salafism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divisions_of_Islam
#198133 by al-rawandi: 4) "Islam requires Interpretation":Chuckle! I agree with what you say, (although I hadn't realised it to anything like the depth that you state), and this difference in interpretation all over is one of the things I was refering to when I said "Islam has no "central authority"", and "It is easy to find contradictory interpretations".
- A difficult concept, in that Ijtihad (interpretation) is a term used differently all over. For instance Sunnis who follow one of the four main schools of Jurisprudence (Shafi'i, Hanafi, Maliki, Hanbali) consider the "door of Ijtihad" to be closed, thus shut by the founders of the school. They rely on manuals of law written by the eponyms of these schools. Wahhabis say that Ijtihad is to be performed by every believer, and Taqlid (reliance on past opinion) is unacceptable. While Shi'a allow the Marja' i-Taqlid to perform Ijtihad and pass on interpretations to their followers.
#198133 by al-rawandi: Just some thoughts.Thanks. The point of that page was to show that Islam couldn't be treated as some sort of monolith with agreement by all Muslims.
That section of the page was: "Is Islam a "Religion of Peace"? What do you want it to be? That can be arranged!" I still don't know a central authority capable of deciding this on behalf of all Muslims.
102. How Darwin won the evolution race
Comment #198177 by Barry Pearson on June 23, 2008 at 10:10 am
#198118 by Apathy: I hope that the organisers (organizers for my American friends :)) of the Darwin events focus on teaching people about evolution, not on the implications evolution has for religious belief.Here is an attempt at a consolidated list, although it is obviously incomplete at the moment:
http://darwin-online.org.uk/2009.html
I don't actually think there will be much emphasis on the implications for religious belief, although that will probably be a minor part of lots of the material. It is mostly about science.
Mostly it appears to be split between "Darwin and his legacy", and "evolution as it is today" (really using Darwin as an excuse to talk about evolution). Some will use it as an opportunity to show the connections between various aspects of science - Darwin himself saw some of the connections, for example to do with the age of the Earth.
I hope there will be material remaining on the web that can be used to good effect for the next decade or more. It should be a lot harder for people to bury their heads in the sand afterwards.
(I wonder if there are any measures that we could monitor from now on over the next few years, to judge the impact? That might be an interesting research project for someone. Perhaps the RD Foundation would fund a well-considered project).
103. The Flea Delusion
Comment #198140 by Barry Pearson on June 23, 2008 at 9:18 am
#197907 by SimUser: Another Flea: Atheism Remix - R. Albert Mohler Jr.I can't help being impressed by the apparent incisiveness of this book, compared with the apparent padding and waffle of the books it criticises!
http://www.atheismremix.com/
http://www.amazon.com/Atheism-Remix-Christian-Confronts-Atheists/dp/1433504979/
"What for years was a little-regarded belief system - atheism - has now gained a large, and increasing, national hearing through the writings of "new atheists" such as Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens.
"Wanting to both inform and equip serious-minded Christians regarding this cultural shift, R. Albert Mohler Jr. explores the environment that has bred the "new atheism" while also introducing readers to the movement's four leading thinkers and the contours of their arguments. Mohler - deemed "the reigning intellectual of the evangelical movement in the US" by Time magazine - then uses this foundation to pinpoint eight major distinctives that make the new atheism new, and to discuss the future of Christianity in relationship to it."
Hardcover: 112 pages.
Compare that with:
Paperback, Dawkins "The God Delusion": about 460 pages.
Paperback, Dennett "Breaking The Spell": about 440 pages.
Paperback, Harris "The End Of Faith": about 330 pages.
Hardcover, Hitchens "God Is Not Great": about 300 pages.
Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, Hitchens - learn to get to the point! Just make your assertions, and stop padding out with logic, step-by-step argument, evidence, and references.
104. 'I despise Islamism': Ian McEwan faces backlash over press interview
Comment #198120 by Barry Pearson on June 23, 2008 at 8:48 am
#198057 by Steve Zara: I think we need to be careful to ensure that some don't use religion and culture as a way of getting at people racially.This real dilemma is being exploited both by racists and by Muslims who want to suppress criticism.
To put things very bluntly, I have little doubt that there are people who think like this: "Who are these funny brown-skinned people with their different food, behaviour and clothes? I don't like change, so I don't like them. I can't use words like "Paki" anymore. I'll use "Muslim" instead."
#198061 by Steve Zara: I think there is a difference between showing a lack of tolerance for beliefs, and providing cover for racists who want to show a lack of tolerance for people. I admit I don't have any easy solutions, but I would be deeply uncomfortable about tolerating racism.
#198065 by phil rimmer: If you make a point of hanging every racist out to dry when you spot one, it becomes increasingly difficult to label you as a racist. A good track record in these instances is the only defence needed.
EDIT Do you fear the bulk of your fellow travellers may be racist? Does joining battle under the banner of being anti-Islamist add the necessary distance from the racist jibe?
#198067 by Steve Zara: I could not name anyone who I thought was racist. I can, however, imagine certain very nasty groups in the UK such as the BNP trying to become "fellow travellers".
#198073 by hungarianelephant: IMO the only way around this is to be utterly clear that the distinction is based on religion and not race, and to repeat it loudly at every opportunity. This of course requires clear policies in the first place.
One indicator is whether Islam is being singled out for criticism that applies more generally. It would be unfair to claim that Islam is unique in suppressing art-forms that are critical. For example, consider the Sikh "Behzti" affair in Birmingham. (Or the "Jerry Springer - The Opera" affair). Unfortunately, Islam often DOES deserve to be singled out, so this indicator doesn't always work.
Another indicator is whether the criticism actually applies to only a proportion of Muslims. For example, Polly Toynbee was very critical of Islam, and became "recognised" as an Islamophobe. But she never attacked Muslim women, and indeed sympathised with them, so it was nonsense to claim that she was attacking all Muslims, and it would have been even worse to claim that this was really a racial attack.
A third indicator is whether the policies resulting from the criticism are relevant and proportionate. If Polly Toynbee had followed her criticism with a recommendation that all Muslims should be repatriated, that would have been suggestive - but of course she didn't.
An important indicator is the depth of the research. Have the members of the BNP read the Koran? I have 6 very critical pages starting at the page below, but I do claim to have done my homework. (I get lots of information from Islamic-reform sources). I have also stated elsewhere that I believe more Muslims than non-Muslims are harmed by Islam, and that in fact probably most Muslims are harmed by Islam.
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/gods/islam.htm
105. Lying for Jesus?
Comment #197986 by Barry Pearson on June 23, 2008 at 3:08 am
#197931 by Quine: Professor Dawkins has written about disposable survival vehicles for the preservation of the genes. We are looking a future where the vehicles turn and use intelligence to make the genes disposable.Perhaps you are talking about "temes"?
"Susan Blackmore: Memes and "temes"":
http://youtube.com/watch?v=fQ_9-Qx5Hz4
106. The Flea Delusion
Comment #197973 by Barry Pearson on June 23, 2008 at 2:44 am
#197939 by clearthinker: I'm not sure atheists are smart enough to worry they might lose this argument. They probably think God's non-existence is so self-evident that all they have to do is re-examine the long-settled question to give their fans a refresher.clearthinker: You may be able to help me with some pages I am developing. Please have a look.
However, in so doing they are encouraging people to actually think about why they believe, instead of just taking their faith claims as a given. Thinking about why they don't believe can have one of two outcomes....
So, from our point of view, when an atheist reads these books, either nothing happens, or they become an agnostic.
I see lots of material from religious people that appears to be trying to convert atheists. I feel that most such conversion material insults my intelligence. Authors typically don't try to understand how individual atheists think and so use irrelevant arguments, they often use fallacious logic, and they rarely provide suitable evidence.
I am trying to help such authors avoid insulting the intelligence of atheists in future. It isn't complete - I don't know everything needed for conversion, otherwise I wouldn't still be an atheist. But this should enable people to demonstrate that they have done their homework, and combined with other material it may provide the basis for making a convincing case.
Here is the current state of the method "How to convert an atheist":
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/gods/convert.htm
I would be interested to get a perspective from a religious person who regularly communicates with atheists. Thank you.
107. The Flea Delusion
Comment #197970 by Barry Pearson on June 23, 2008 at 2:38 am
#197699 by esuther: I'm willing to bet that most of those flea books are all small run short-lived publications and certainly not translated. I don't suppose it is possible to get any numbers regarding flea sales, but there can't be very many. People looking for rationalizations of their wobbling faith have already bought the first ones.If I were a memetics engineer, wanting to enourage the propogation of memes such as "God is a Delusion" and "Richard Dawkins offers a novel challenge against God", I would be pretty pleased with all of these fleas.
#197701 by mordacious1: The one good thing about "flea books" is that a week after they're published, you can find them in thrift stores for a quarter.... Oh well, at least I kept them out of the hands of young people.
#197720 by rod-the-farmer: One is tempted to do some investigation into just how many copies of these fleas have been sold, world-wide.
#197757 by Teratornis: I'm not sure theists are smart enough to worry they might lose this argument. They probably think God's existence is so self-evident that all they have to do is re-examine the long-settled question to give their flock a refresher. However, in so doing they are encouraging people to actually think about why they believe, instead of just taking their faith claims as a given. Thinking about why they believe what they believe can have one of two outcomes....
If "teach the controversy [about evolution]" and "teach strengths and weaknesses [of evolution]" are good tactics by the ID movement, (which they probably are), then similarly these memes are good ones to have in the meme-pool accessible to the next generation. For children brought up exposed only to the "strengths" about God, with no hint about the controversy, these memes will be hard to overlook or ignore.
(I wish these memes had been around in the 1960s! They would have saved me 20 years of copping-out by calling myself an agnostic).
108. 'I despise Islamism': Ian McEwan faces backlash over press interview
Comment #197962 by Barry Pearson on June 23, 2008 at 2:05 am
#197595 by Fanusi Khiyal: 6. Similarly we should protect those dissidents fighting against Islam. It's another disgrace that we can find trillions to pour down the sinkhole of Iraqi democracy while not being able to spare the cash for some really tough guys to guard Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Wafa Sultan etc. Also, we should support the Iranian diaspora that has very heavily renounced Islam, and is fighting against it.Nor here.
#197839 by NakedCelt: No argument there.
But the sort of groups that "the West" appears to find useful to support are not the sort who can help with that sort of reform. Those reform people and groups are probably not the ones who will offer to help secure oil supplies or combat terrorism. In fact, the reform goups probably "offer" instability, at least in the short and medium term.
"The West" has a record of supporting regimes and other groups worldwide for short term gains who later turn out to be part of the problem, especially once we have armed them.
At the very least, we need to keep those people alive, give hope for others to become active, and help keep lines of communication (especially the Internet, etc) open among those groups.
109. 'I despise Islamism': Ian McEwan faces backlash over press interview
Comment #197949 by Barry Pearson on June 23, 2008 at 1:48 am
#197750 by mordacious1: In the pictures I only see men on their prayer mats, are the women in a back room of the mosque?In the Birmingham Central Mosque (UK) the women use a room upstairs at the back, looking out over the main hall through windows, as Vinelectric says. (I spent some hours there last September talking to people and being shown around).
Shows how much I know, or care, about these things.
#197802 by TeraBrat: I know for a fact that Muslim women pray. I don't know all the rules and regulations in Islam, but, every Muslim woman I have known had a prayer mat and prayed five times a day.
#197819 by Vinelectric: Small mosques do not allow women. Large mosques will house them on a split level, the first floor or on the same ground floor but at the very back behind a barrier.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birmingham_Central_Mosque
There are reform movements:
"Islamic Bill of Rights for Women in the Mosque":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Bill_of_Rights_for_Women_in_the_Mosque
"Women as imams":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_as_imams
110. 'I despise Islamism': Ian McEwan faces backlash over press interview
Comment #197725 by Barry Pearson on June 22, 2008 at 2:43 pm
#197637 by Fanusi Khiyal: Does anyone know what the definition of a hate crime is in the UK? It's this: Even hinting you might say a small amount of the truth about Islam. That's it.Given the vast amounts of criticism of Islam published in the UK without prosecution as "hate crime", your definition doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
It would be more useful to reference the relevant UK laws, and identify cases where there have been prosecutions, especially successful ones, involving the criticism of Islam, truthful or not. We would then be able to discuss whether the boundaries are right.
What appears to be happening is speculation that X or Y might be a "hate crime", without any indication that anyone in authority is seriously suggesting action under the law. That sounds like generating a controversy in order to debate it - perhaps learning from the ID people!
I am aware of the case where Channel 4 were accused of bias by the police when they investigated hate speeches by Imams, but the action was not successful. Some Christians were arrested for preaching Christianity in a "Muslim" area, but that wasn't about hate speech. There was another case where someone was arrested for calling Scientology a cult in a street demonstration, but there was no prosecution. (And it doesn't count because it wasn't Islam!) But what else?
I don't even think that the concept of Islamophobia is taken as seriously as it was. It always was a shoddy accusation, and now I think more people realise it.
111. Christianity 'could die out within a century'
Comment #197645 by Barry Pearson on June 22, 2008 at 12:24 pm
#197348 by Shuggy: It'll be a worry if Christianity and Judaism die out leaving Islam as the only monotheism. Islam's quite triumphalist enough already. They need each other to show their adherants that there are other ways of being monotheists (since we're never going to be fast enough at weaning them of that one god too many).... In a way, a world-wide California of crazy cults, but all safely small, would be better.What would be the impact on Islam in the UK if Christianity (and other religions) die out in the UK?
#197477 by Border Collie: Christianity dying out and leaving a huge vacuum for Islam to fill. Oh, wouldn't that be lovely?
How could Islam fill a vacuum? Are non-Muslims going to say "I would prefer to be Christian but that is dying out so I'll be a Muslim instead?" I doubt that! Islam will grow in the UK largely by immigration and birth, not by conversion.
Consider two extremes: the first has 2 million Muslims in a highly Christian UK. The second has 2 million Muslims in a highly non-believing, even atheist, UK. In which case would Muslims be most devout?
In the first case, the whole climate would be religious, and Muslims would seek a way of maintaining their specific identity, and support one-another in a society that tended to exclude them and even threaten them. There would be no motivation to become non-religious, and their own communities would view apostasy as defection. Many would be politically-oriented, to hang onto what they have as a minority.
In the second, the emphasis would be on non-religious aspects of society, and society wouldn't exclude them, but would see them as partners, consumers, neighbours, etc. Fundamentalists would certainly feel threatened. But young people would probably want to have a dual identity, taking advantage of both worlds, the secular consumer fun progressive world and their own cultural heritage. There would be little motivation to practise the more politically-oriented aspects of Islam, because there would be little they had to fight for.
I find it hard to believe that Islam would be more of a problem in the second case than the first. Quite the contrary.
112. 'I despise Islamism': Ian McEwan faces backlash over press interview
Comment #197604 by Barry Pearson on June 22, 2008 at 11:19 am
#197504 by Sargeist: Are we not allowed to express our dissatisfaction with *anything* these days?I've said this before, and no doubt I'll say it again.
#197508 by Fanusi Khiyal: A finish blogger was sentenced to two and a half years in prison for, quote "insulting Islam", close quote. We have all these campaigns assuring us that Islam is peaceful, and we have these EU directives and so on.
#197555 by Sargeist: Something about this article bothers me. Have I missed it, or does the article not actually report any backlash, but simply says that McEwan "might" be liable to prosecution under the hate laws while not indicating whether this is at all likely, possible, or whether anyone has yet reacted to the interview?
#197564 by FightingFalcon: I smell a hate crime brewing! How long before McEwan gets dragged before the UN Human Rights Council?
#197566 by Steve Zara: I can't see a "hate crime" prosecution against someone as well-respected as McEwan proceeding. At least I hope not.
This is the current UK law (an amendment to the Public Order Act 1986 as a result of the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006):
29J - Protection of freedom of expression:
"Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system".
You mustn't (with intent) incite hatred of a group of people defined by religious beliefs, but there is no law against massive criticism and insult to religions and religious practices. We can insult Islam, and I am not aware of any EU ruling that would contradict this law. The UN has no effect on the UK in this matter.
113. Christianity 'could die out within a century'
Comment #197556 by Barry Pearson on June 22, 2008 at 10:19 am
#197491 by Cartomancer: Is it just me who can't work out how many different studies this very short article is discussing?Although it didn't mention it, there are others. Below is a table extracted from a "Eurobarometer" in 2005, and extracts from UK Social Trends No. 38 2008. (I've turned the key tables into linked GIF images for ease).
I counted up to four....
Eurobarometer: Social values, Science and Technology, 2005:
http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_225_report_en.pdf
Extract of a table:
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/gods/assets/EB_2005.gif
Social Trends No. 38 2008 edition:
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_social/Social_Trends38/Social_Trends_38.pdf
Extracts of tables:
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/gods/assets/ST_2008.gif
Note that even within the same Social Trends document, the numbers don't appear to add up. Different surveys ask different questions of different audiences.
But if my job depended on "bums on pews", I would be a bit worried.
114. What Happens When a School Board of Religious Zealots Will 'Lie for Jesus'?
Comment #197492 by Barry Pearson on June 22, 2008 at 8:55 am
#197456 by Chris Davis: I reckon that, in protest, the REAL Dover (up the A20 from Folkestone) should rename itself Freedomville."There'll be Blue Birds over the White Cliffs of Freedomville"?
115. Lying for Jesus?
Comment #197480 by Barry Pearson on June 22, 2008 at 8:25 am
#197455 by Steve Zara: These bishops don't seem to be very good at finding this universal moral compass they keep talking about.They use a Moral Sat Nav instead.
You choose your own model. Choose whether to stick with the original maps, or download new maps. (They get out of date very quickly, but some people prefer the stay with old maps). Choose whether you want a voice telling you what to do, or have it be silent. Choose the type of voice - woman, man, (and if the latter, John Cleese). Do you want the short route or the fast route?
You can set it to tell you about traps and dangers, unless you are so virtuous that you don't need to be warned. You can ignore it when you want to, and it just says "recalculating" without criticising you. You can deliberately make diversions, and it will later guide you back onto the true route. It will sometimes lead you along unsuitable routes if you don't exercise common sense.
Perfect for religion in the 21st century. Do pretty much what you want, while still being able to claim that you were conforming to some superior external reference.
Comment #197432 by Barry Pearson on June 22, 2008 at 3:26 am
#197373 by marshall1: I like to communicate with Atheist's mostly because it reinforces my faith.marshall1: You may be able to help me with some pages I am developing. Please have a look.
In a forum like this where the contributors are probably 98% unbelievers you would think that something you would read could challenge your beliefs. But it never happens.
The points that Atheists make are not unique. Christians (at least me) have already considered most of the points that Atheists hang their faith on, but we believe anyway.
I see lots of material from religious people that appears to be trying to convert atheists. I feel that most such conversion material insults my intelligence. Authors typically don't try to understand how individual atheists think and so use irrelevant arguments, they often use fallacious logic, and they rarely provide suitable evidence.
I am trying to help such authors avoid insulting the intelligence of atheists in future. It isn't complete - I don't know everything needed for conversion, otherwise I wouldn't still be an atheist. But this should enable people to demonstrate that they have done their homework, and combined with other material it may provide the basis for making a convincing case.
Here is the current state of the method "How to convert an atheist":
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/gods/convert.htm
I would be interested to get a perspective from a religious person who regularly communicates with atheists. Thank you.
117. Christianity 'could die out within a century'
Comment #197416 by Barry Pearson on June 22, 2008 at 2:30 am
#197328 by mordacious1: Well good luck with this, I won't hold my breath.There are various measures. What does "die out" actually mean? The people being surveyed probably wouldn't agree about the words they were using. Perhaps there will still be tiny "Christian cults" in 1000 years, but will that matter?
#197338 by bachfiend: We really couldn't be that lucky.
#197341 by 8teist: Irrational beliefs will never die, once this current batch of religobabbles have done their dash something else will have sprung forth to separate the gullible from their cash and offer them life eternal.
#197371 by huzonfurst: I'd love to believe this, but everyone thought religion would die out at the end of the 19th century too. That ghost meme is a tough mother!
#197357 by Abyst: Personally, I would read "die out" as "no longer have the considerable political & social influence it currently has". Certainly some errant branches of Christianity will no doubt survive, but I think we'll begin to see less political involvement by organized Chrisitian groups (or at least, their involvement won't be so dominating, as it currently is in the U.S.).
One measure I now use is "to what degree will religions be different from other hobbies?" (And the same goes for other irrational practices). Although we may despair about the way irrational beliefs don't entirely go away, and the way more beliefs arise to replace others, if they have no more social impact than other hobbies, would we care? I think this is the point made at #197357 by Abyst.
(It does matter that we have people around who have irrational beliefs, but it does appear that people can compartmentalise them. Belief in gods doesn't stop people doing good science, etc. We should measure the degree to which people can think critically when it matters, not just the amount of religion).
This is another promotion of "Religions are hobbies":
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/gods/hobby.htm
118. What Happens When a School Board of Religious Zealots Will 'Lie for Jesus'?
Comment #197280 by Barry Pearson on June 21, 2008 at 2:48 pm
For interest, her book is at the link below, and the reviews are well worth reading. This sounds like a great book.
http://www.amazon.com/Devil-Dover-Insiders-Small-town-America/dp/1595582088/
EDIT:
epeeist, for interest: I'm in Stockport.
119. Louisiana's Latest Assault on Darwin
Comment #197276 by Barry Pearson on June 21, 2008 at 2:27 pm
#197186 by heafnerj: Folks, I really hate to be the one to say it, but the fact that this non-issue repeatedly comes back is evidence that it's not going away. We've lost this battle, mostly thanks to the dumbing down of public education in this country. The next third world country on the planet will be America.Yes to the latter. And let's be clear - talk here about giving up is irrelevant. Barbara Forrest & Louisiana Coalition for Science, Eugenie Scott & NCSE, etc, are committed to this war and won't give up.
#197189 by epeeist: Yes, the likes of the Discovery Institute and the Christian "universities" will keep plugging away trying to undermine your constitution and undermine science and rationality in your country. But you will only have definitely lost the battle when you decide it isn't worth the effort. You have to keep up the fight using whatever means are open to you. Otherwise your prediction might just come true.
Probably fewer than one in a million people in the US (such as the ones I mentioned above) spend most of their time fighting this war. What they do a lot is amplify their efforts by getting others to help - parents, science associations, us, etc. The web and other aspects of modern technology help them. Some scientists spend part of their time helping, but I doubt if that exceeds a few % of their time.
All they need from us is at most perhaps one letter or email per week, typically less. Less than 1% of our time. That would swamp the opposition. (In the last 3 months, I've sent one letter to my MP, an email to the Govenor of Louisiana, a few emails to organisations supplying potentially useful information, a few comments to articles in online newspapers, etc. Not a big deal).
We don't give in with crime, even though it isn't going away. We probably all budget a small amount of our time combatting crime in our own way, even if just by taking precautions. That is life.
120. We Urgently Need Your Help Now!!
Comment #197173 by Barry Pearson on June 21, 2008 at 9:33 am
#197108 by Steve Zara: Good letter, but ID supporters and even many Creationists no longer question Natural Selection at some levels. They now tend to question the appearance of new species of "higher" organisms. They would have no problem with the development of pesticide resistance or the appearance of new strains of bird flu, for example. It may be, however, that such subtleties would be lost on a politician!I often write to politicians, civil servants, etc. I realise that I rarely make a significant difference! I would love to know a better formula.
I always have some sort of plan. In this case, I needed to say why a citizen of the UK was writing to a US Governor. I am uncomfortable with, and sceptical of, pro-forma letters, and pro-forma letters coming from outside the State suggests some sort of unintelligent blitzing which might be worse than useless. I am used to receiving pro-forma response, or none at all.
I didn't imagine he would react positively to anything resembling blackmail, insults to his intelligence, personal criticism, or warnings that he or his State would become a laughing stock. He is in a position to be defiant.
I decided to push some buttons: "save money", "save lives", "reduce conflict". (And I have read enough about the topic to believe in what I was saying). I didn't want to emphasise "we need better educated politicians in future"! So I went for "we need more scientists in future". I accept your point that the ID movement wouldn't necessarily disagree with my assertions.
For interest, here are examples of my letter writing (with responses) in the past about a different topic:
http://www.childsupportanalysis.co.uk/correspondence.htm
And a more recent example (with responses) about religion and atheism:
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/gods/letter1.htm
121. We Urgently Need Your Help Now!!
Comment #197107 by Barry Pearson on June 21, 2008 at 5:42 am
For what it is worth, here is the text of my email to Governor Jindal.
As usual, I pursued my own path!
Dear Governor Jindal:
This gives my perspective, as a UK citizen, on why you should veto SB 733.
While people are engaged in debates about contradictions between aspects of science and aspects of religion, "nature" is pitilessly and blindly getting on with its attack on humans. Its method is "evolution by natural selection". "Nature" hasn't heard the message that there are supposedly problems with evolution. Evolution is happening now, it is costing the world, including the US, billions of dollars, and it is killing many people. These problems, summarised below, will increase over the coming decades unless we fight back.
To fight back, all nations need to sustain, and preferably increase, funding for the relevant aspects of biology, and we need to be educating the next generation of scientists to be literate in biology, including evolution. This is a global problem, which is why I feel entitled to comment on the legislation of another nation.
Here are a few examples of current problems being caused by evolution in the real world:
- Bacteria resistent to antibiotics kill many people. Bacteria become resistent as a result of evolution. Developing new antibiotics costs vasts amounts of money. An understanding of evolution is needed to develop new drugs that are less likely to be resisted.
- The world awaits with fear the evolution of the "bird flu" virus into a form that will propogate faster. It will kill millions of people worldwide if (when?) that happens, unless biological scientists can track this evolution and combat the impact.
- Agricultural pests are evolving that can resist our pesticides or attack our genetically-modified crops. This problem needs leading-edge biological science, including evolution, to track it and fight back. This one problem itself has the potential to kill millions (hundreds of millions?) of people through starvation, to cause massive migration with the consequent social upheaval and conflict, and to cost many billions of dollars per year.
- Fish stocks are evolving to be less useful as food sources. Our well-intentioned, but poorly-analysed, fishing policies are thwarted by blind natural selection which is evolving smaller, slower-to-mature, fish. This can have similar consequences to the evolution of agricultural pests.
- Others pests, such as rats and rampant plants, continue to evolve, to our cost. It is even possible to see this evolution occuring during the lifetime of research projects. Evolution is a fact, not a hypothesis with weaknesses that need to be taught in schools. The debates that occur among scientists are not doubts about whether evolution by natural selection is the truth, but about its details. Those details need to be resolved, by a next generation of scientists that accept evolution as the mechanism behind the problems we face and are motivated to extend our knowledge of it. And by a next generation of politicians who see the need to fund that science.
- I'm sure there are many other examples.
Who knows what the future problems caused by the reality of evolution will be? But we can be certain they will cost us many lives and billions of dollars. We can't afford to have the next generation believing that there are credible alternative ways of solving these problems.
Please veto SB 733. Thank you.
Yours, Barry Pearson
122. PZ Myers - Science and Atheism in the Blogosphere
Comment #197078 by Barry Pearson on June 21, 2008 at 3:46 am
At #197073 AtheistJon said: One aspect that I slightly dislike is the way that atheist blogs tend to be so politically dogmatic. I always end up having political arguments rather than discussing science or atheism. I wish these blogs would be as open politically as they are in terms of science.I believe these blogs are good for sharing information and developing ideas. That is how I use this one.
The other thing I dislike about blogs is that the discussions are very chaotic. You make a statement and there are so many other conversations going on that you generally don't get your voice heard unless you join somebody else's discussion. Also, people misinterpret very easily because they cannot possible read all entries and so miss points that were made in the past.
I believe blogs like this part of the website are poor for debates and arguments, which is what comments sometimes turn into. Threaded forums are better for that.
(I'm not sure what the best format for a "rant" is! Probably getting down on your knees, putting your hands together, closing your eyes, and talking to yourself).
An improvement I would like is always to have the date of the original material clearly identified. One recent article quoted in full a 2001 article in a newspaper without giving the date. With no reason to go to the original article, I wonder how many people realised that it was old news?
I wrote the above before this was posted:
At #197077 Steve Zara said: If we are going to be effective we need to do more than just "blogging our frustrations away", that is, unless we are sure that our blogging in a way that has an effect. Blogging alone is not action. For those without the huge audience of PZ Myers it can be equivalent to a conversation between friends in a pub. One puts the world to rights over a beer, but nothing changes.Precisely! I like to quote to myself (and sometimes to others, which probably irritates them!) "I am in the solution business, not the debating business".
Blogs can be used to discuss ideas, and to arrange campaigns. They can also be used as a resource, where one can archive thoughts and links.
The reality check is "what difference will what I am writing make to the Real World?"
Comment #197070 by Barry Pearson on June 21, 2008 at 2:57 am
At #197055 Logicel said: The success of this website (and of PZ Myers) in terms of it allowing diverse individuals from all over the world to pummel religion in a critical thinking manner, consistently without letting up for nearly two years is about something to be concerned.Yes - that is a new factor that they don't know how to handle.
The IDiots reaction is probably a mix of smugness (we can lie, cheat, and steal our way out of this like we have been doing) and genuine powerlessness against a new weapon, the Web, on which their children can plug into a world of reason and critical thinking demolishing the careful walls of ignorance around them that their parents built.
These IDiots are watching the walls crumble in horror -- some of them may be denying this reality, but others are scrambling to pick up the broken stones and patch them back into the disintegrating edifice, to only have them come tumbling back down on their IDiot heads.
There has been a lot of talk about "new atheism", as though this is something that they can try to understand and learn how to combat. Here is an email I sent in April to the website "Investigating Atheism", which had a page discussing "new atheism":
http://www.investigatingatheism.info/controversies.html
My email:
Here is a hypothesis that could be a topic for study:
"There is no such thing as "new atheism". Instead there is a "new context" ("new audience" and "new media") which has changed the perception of "existing atheism"."
Examination of Jack Huberman's "The Quotable Atheist" shows that nearly all the themes in the latest set of books were present in earlier works. Also, the language of many of those earlier expressions were at least as disrespectful of religion.
Here is a thought experiment:
Suppose that Richard Dawkins had had an outline of "The God Delusion" in earlier decades - 1996, 1986, 1976, .... Would there have been sufficient incentives for Richard to expand that outline to its current comprehensive version, rather than release it in more limited form? Would there have been sufficient incentives for a publisher to publish it as widely and as well-translated? What would the reception have been?
For example: 1996. The web existed, but was not widely used. There were no web forums, no video-viewing such as YouTube or video downloads, little or no on-line publication of news articles, etc. There were fewer TV stations available to most people in the UK, probably less need to find material to fill the air-time, and perhaps less need for controversial material to attract viewers.
Another factor in 1996 was "this was pre-9/11". That influenced some of the content of the book and surely changed the audience.
Given all of this, how far would people have taken an interest in even the comprehensive version? Surely far fewer people would have been aware of it, and there would have been fewer opportunities to debate it? Would people even have been talking about "new atheism"?
This sort of analysis could be extended to earlier decades, and to all of the current set of books.
Rather more speculative, how will the current books be viewed in 2016, 2026, ...? And what will new books about atheism, perhaps written by a new and less restrained generation, be like in those years? Will the "conversational climate" have changed so that the current books will be seen as quite mild, with new books being more aggressive?
End email.
124. Muslim countries win concession regarding religious debates
Comment #196724 by Barry Pearson on June 20, 2008 at 11:30 am
CaptinsQuarters said: There is absolutely no good reason why religion shouldn't be on the table for criticism, most of all Islam.... Religion unfortunately is something that affects us all so all of us have a say in its support or criticism.Muslims tend to be hypocritical about such criticism.
In the UK, at least, there is a "diagnostic" for "Islamophobia" that was created by the Runnymede Trust.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runnymede_Trust
It identifies 8 categories, then judges material, or a person, according to whether it/they adopt a "closed" or "open" attitude with respect to each category. For example, category 5 is "Manipulative / sincere", and the closed and open positions are respectively:
Closed: "Islam seen as a political ideology, used for political or military advantage".
Open: "Islam seen as a genuine religious faith, practised sincerely by its adherents".
The problem, of course, is that these are not "the inaccurate views" and "the accurate views". They are actually "Views unacceptable to most Muslims" and "Views acceptable to most Muslims" respectively. In other words, it is shoddy analysis with the intention of censoring unacceptable views.
I have commentary on the Runnymede Trust's diagnostic here:
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/gods/islam_islamophobia.htm#islamophobia
What is illuminating is to reverse the words in the diagnostic, swapping "Muslim" with "non-Muslim", etc. This then becomes a diagnostic for "Infidelophobia" - an attitude that many Muslims have towards non-Muslims. I have done so here:
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/gods/islam_islamophobia.htm#mirror
Just examine what constitutes Infidelophobia, according to this diagnostic. Lots of things said by vocal Muslims! It is easy to find everyday statements that they themselves would reject if they were reversed. In fact, whichever way you use it, the diagnostic is shoddy.
The situation of Islam in the world is very complicated. Some of the most telling criticism comes from Muslims who want reform. I suspect they wouldn't get an audience at the UN!
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/gods/islam.htm
125. We Urgently Need Your Help Now!!
Comment #196692 by Barry Pearson on June 20, 2008 at 10:42 am
Steve Zara said: Big changes can come quickly. I have seen this in recent years, with the issue of gay rights, which has helped me considerably. There is now open discussion, and a presidential candidate (Obama) has given speeches in which he includes "non-believers". I would not be surprised if there were significant changes in 5 to 10 years.A question is: "what change is being requested?" There are lots of things influencing one-another.
AllanW said: Yep, all happened with what might look like dramatic speed at the end. The distinction I would draw between these examples and the creationism v science issue in the States is that there is not a clear majority of the population in favour of it. In fact it is a clear minority; disorganised, fragmented and with no clear suffering that acts as a spur to getting a resolution so that people can just live a normal life. Not the same IMO so a dramatic shift is not a realistic prospect.
1. People with varying levels of science-literacy and/or creationist-thinking making decisions about science education. (School board members; local politicians; perhaps judges).
2. Teachers (ditto). School; college; etc.
3. Parents (ditto). Using schools; home-schooling.
4. Children being taught by various means by such teachers with such parents.
5. Text books and their publishers at different levels.
6. The Creationist/ID "generators of material" (ideas, papers, books, lectures, etc).
7. (and others).
These influence one-another in complicated ways, with varying delays. A common tendency for a community like this is that, initially, all of these proportions tend to stick near the bad end. It could be argued that in fact they took many centuries to make any progress. This is probably what AllanW is seeing.
Because of the way they influence one-another in combination, once they DO get away from the bad end, the trend in all of them is likely to speed up. This is what Steve Zara is talking about. (The Enlightenment took less time to have dramatic results than the centuries of stagnation before it). I won't call it a "tipping point", because I don't think it will be as dramatic as "a point". But I can imagine a period of (say) 10 years, at the end of which people will say "gosh, we weren't expecting that to happen so fast!" (The trouble is, I don't know how close that 10 years is!)
A rule of thumb is that things tend to take a lot longer to get started than expected, and are then a lot more dramatic than expected. (This applies to a lot of cases: lasers used to be "a solution in search of a problem", yet now I don't actually know how many I personally own!) Because we are talking about the influence of people, hence generations, that "10 years" may be a bit optimistic, but I think I have heard Daniel Dennett talk in such terms.
I would like to see a System dynamics model of this, implemented with a tool such as Vensim. (I used to use that tool for the purpose. I wonder if I still have a copy? But it is hard work to use properly, really needing a team, and I don't really have the motivation!)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_dynamics
http://www.vensim.com/
Such a model would show all of the above features, plus the time delays and even random perturbations, and a tool like Vensim (a colleague used to use Stella / iThink) could run a simulation showing the next century. It is hard to calibrate, of course, so what you do is keep recalibrating it as events unfold to improve the quality of its predictions.
126. We Urgently Need Your Help Now!!
Comment #196548 by Barry Pearson on June 20, 2008 at 6:30 am
AllanW said: But what it reveals to me is the fundamental problem that 'Science' is not understood well enough, not trusted enough and is not co-ordinated enough to obtain popular support for its arguments. I've read all the good stuff about the apparent rise in non-belief in America and the 'calls to arms' by RD, PZ et al for science popularisers to get out there and spread the word and do you know what? It's looking increasingly like it's too late.... The creationists will CONSTANTLY batter at this argument, morph into different strains as they hit brick walls and try to slither around them. They will never stop until there are not enough of them to fuel the engine; and that doesn't look like being the case for a very, very long time. A timescale in all likelihood way outside our time on this earth, IMO. So what should rational, reasonable people in the States do? Keep fighting the good fight? With no end in sight?First - why not? There are lots of things we keep fighting with no end in sight, (such as crime), but it helps society if we lessen it. And the benefit/cost ratio is probably quite high, when viewed over generations - surely fewer than one in a million people in the US spend most of their time fighting this particular battle.
Second - there are visible signs of progress. Once teaching evolution was banned. Now teaching Creationism/ID is banned. The ID position is getting weaker, down to "teach the controvery", or "teach strengths and weaknesses".
William Dembski is recognising that the ID movement is at odds with religious people who accept evolution:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/theistic-evolutionists-close-ranks-let-the-bloodletting-begin/
Theistic evolutionists are implacably opposed to ID .... They are happy to jump in bed with Richard Dawkins if it means defeating ID. They are on the wrong side of the culture war. And they need to be defeated.His strategy is explicit:
What's our strategy. The strategy is multipronged. Let me just give you one prong: WIN THE YOUTH. The release date for Miller's book is June 12th. I've got a book titled Understanding Intelligent Design: Everything You Need to Know in Plain Language (co-authored with youth speaker and high-school teacher Sean McDowell) whose release date is July 1st. It is geared specifically at mobilizing Christian young people, homeschoolers, and church youth groups with the ID alternative to Darwinian evolution.Is he winning new converts, or preaching to the choir? Is he actually trying to reduce losses?
I found the following (which isn't about ID) illuminating. You can see/hear a key feature in the first 90 seconds. Here is a Catholic apologist who began meeting catholics who were losing their faith as a result of The God Delusion, etc. (So he has co-authored a book attacking Richard Dawkins and TGD). It might appear that "we" are fighting a hopeless battle. In fact, some religious people are feeling that they are doing the same.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=7f-I1w9R8co
I'm in the UK, where things are different. The blasphemy laws are being rescinded. A bad section of a "religious hatred" law was overturned on one vote, partly as a result of public opposition. The Catholic Church (and others) mounted massive opposition to legislation concerned with stem-cell research, hybrid cells, abortion, etc. So far they appear to have failed on every count, with many Catholic Members of Parliament voting for the legislation and against the Church's position. Each small victory is worth it.
OK, I'm an optimist! But NOW, with Darwin's year approaching, is certainly the wrong time to give up.
EDIT: how about this?
"Christianity 'could die out within a century'"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2160495/Christianity-'could-die-out-within-a-century'.html
127. Teen's death blamed on faith healing
Comment #196520 by Barry Pearson on June 20, 2008 at 5:09 am
Frankus1122 said: I am going to think on this further. It sounds like a promising idea.... I like your hobby idea.I reserve the right to steal your ideas (or anyone else's) and use them on that page! I have few original ideas, but I'm quite good at synthesising models that appear coherent. It comes from having been a computer geek:
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/business/cv.htm
Some people practise a religion without believing in its god. Some people have a hobby based on strongly-held beliefs. It is hard to identify anything that definitively separates them.
If I have something substantial I can refer to, such as a web page rather than a post to a forum, I'll acknowledge your material. I certainly welcome anything you or anyone else says. (Thanks for your response).
I have a YouTube channel "just in case" although I have never made a video nor even commented on anyone else's. I wonder ....!
http://youtube.com/user/BarryCPearson
128. Muslim countries win concession regarding religious debates
Comment #196503 by Barry Pearson on June 20, 2008 at 4:00 am
Brian English said: It was only a few months ago that the role of the Human Rights Council's special rapporteur was changed from watching Human right's violations to making sure religions weren't insulted. The Human Rights Council has been stacked with muslim delegates for years now. They've changed the purpose of the council to suit themselves.....Precisely! This sort of action was becoming inevitable.
Steven Mading said: How many of us didn't see this coming based on which countries were making up the UN human rights council now? When we found out who was on that council, many of us here complained and foretold that this kind of crap would happen. We were right.
You already know this, but for the sake of others, here is stuff I posted here earlier that provides some extra references:
http://www.richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2486,Religion-is-the-new-social-evil,Times-Online,page1#165104
http://www.richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2565,-On-Fitna-the-Movie,-Maryam-Namazie,page1#178733
In particular:
Barry Pearson said: Islam, in particular, is incompatible (even in theory) with Universal Human Rights, and I guess there will be continual attacks on human rights across Europe as well.
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/gods/islam_cairo.htm
GBart said: Apparently the UN Human Rights Council doesn't give a shit about human rights. Ironic that they should be so named...It is a recent change as a result of the shift in its composition. Membership rotates, and by a sort of accident Islamic states are now in control.
black wolf said: I'm glad that the EU takes a much clearer and firmer stance:black wolf: is that an EU (European Union) matter or a Council of Europe matter? Certainly your quote mentions the Council of Europe a lot.
Resolution 1464 (2005)1
hungarianelephant said: Are you kidding? If the EU took a clear and firm stance, it would hardly require the (elected) Parliament to petition the (unelected) Council to actually do something.
hungarianelephant: in case you don't know, the Council of Europe is a different body from the EU. It is the Council of Europe that is primarily responsible for human rights in Europe, via the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and the European Court of Human Rights. All members of the EU are also members of the Council of Europe, but the latter has many more members.
EDIT: sorry, NFT, I've just seen that you have explained that too, #196479.
129. Teen's death blamed on faith healing
Comment #196491 by Barry Pearson on June 20, 2008 at 3:26 am
Frankus1122 said: Perhaps joining a religion should be something that you are only allowed to do once you have reached the age of majority.... Imagine that you have to register your religion when you turn 18 or 21 or whatever. Maybe you would have to write a test of some kind indicating that you are aware that you are willfully leaving the realm of justified rational thought.I hold the view that "religions are OK when practised by consenting adults in private". But I now feel that is inadequate, and without qualification it is unlikely to be taken seriously by most people. I can't justify it in that form as a realistic policy. However much we might want a zero-tolerance approach where children are concerned, it won't be accepted.
I now believe that by realising that religious practices (customs and rituals) are hobbies, we have the means to analyse where the boundaries of religions' roles should be, using existing well-understood examples that successfully allow lots of disparate communities to coexist. It is a model that can't be criticised as totalitarian or untried or contrary to human rights.
We should ask "what would be our attitude if a child dies practising their parents' hobby?"
I'm still developing the following page - I'll give this some thought:
"Religions are hobbies":
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/gods/hobby.htm
130. Teen's death blamed on faith healing
Comment #196484 by Barry Pearson on June 20, 2008 at 3:10 am
For interest, when it comes to medical treatment, the UK, and some other countries such as Australia, Canada and New Zealand, have a less rigid, more meaningful test. It is called "Gillick competence".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gillick_competence
As a matter of Law the parental right to determine whether or not their minor child below the age of sixteen will have medical treatment terminates if and when the child achieves sufficient understanding and intelligence to understand fully what is proposed.... The Gillick standard should be contrasted with the stricter age-limit approach used in the US.It is important not only what the child says, but whether the child actually comprehends the nature of the decision being made. S/he has to understand the consequences either way of the decision in order for their decision to be accepted. I guess that would mean that the child would have to understand that saying "no" meant dying, and dying was final.
"Gillick competence" normally applies to cases where the child is at odds with the parents, which is not the case here. But it could be extended to the case where the child is at odds with (say) local authorities.
131. We Urgently Need Your Help Now!!
Comment #196460 by Barry Pearson on June 20, 2008 at 2:23 am
I'll respond to some of your specific points below.
Styrer said: I am well aware of the implications of my 'zero-tolerance' approach. I am going to add to your disapprobation of my approach by saying I think that it was worth risking losing Dover for the sake of intellectual honesty and of forging ahead with a wider condemnation of superstitious supernaturalism.... Trusting this clarifies my view.It does, thank you. We probably share the same ultimate objectives. We clearly disagree about how to achieve them.
I believe that the method you propose wouldn't actually achieve your/our objectives. To get "there" from "here" we can't take that route. One reason is that part of the current problem is lack of good education in science. Remember that what helped turn Richard Dawkins from a Christian to an atheist at school was the realisation that evolution explained things that otherwise appeared to need God. Many of the people influencing silly decisions about science education, for example helping to choose science books, had poor science education themselves. We need the next generation to be as scientifically literate as possible. That is why NCSE, Barbara Forrest, the Louisiana Coalition for Science, etc, are trying to do their best for science education.
I can't link "losing Dover" with "integrity". Those parents wanted help. Failing to help them and their children because of some "wider war" makes them sound like "collateral damage". And claiming to help them but fighting a different battle instead wouldn't sound like "intellectual honesty" to me.
Styrer said: The remit of Eugenie Scott et. al. is anti-creationism/ID and, while her diligence and sense of purpose are to be lauded, her NOMA approach is making it very hard to fight with intellectual integrity the wider war, as I see it, which is the root cause of the growth of the very creationist notions she is seeking to combat.I've seen many hours of material featuring Eugenie Scott, etc, and see little evidence that they are having the adverse impact you say. Perhaps we will only know in decades to come - in which case the proper tactics now are only a matter of opinion.
Remember that it is an EXPLICIT intention of the ID movement to change science from using materialistic explanations to using explanations based on God. They aren't simply trying to promote religion alongside science. They are trying to change the very nature of science (all science, not just evolution) to one where ID is the dominant perspective. Perhaps we can afford to lose some battles in order to win the larger war, but we surely can't afford to lose the battle for the integrity of science itself.
Styrer said: You will find on this site (I think this is where I saw it) a clip of Eugenie Scott speaking to a packed auditorium of university students, informing them that their god, if they are religious, is utterly untouched by the findings of science she subsequently introduces.That is not her most common topic, but it makes sense for her not to appear threatening to the people she is trying to help. Certainly NCSE can't afford be be seen to be promoting atheism, which would probably contravene the law as well causing parents to reject it.
I can't comment without seeing the clip, but I will point out the FACTS that many scientists are religious, many religious organisations have openly stated that they support evolution, and so have very many clergy. Why not exploit those facts?
Styrer said: Richard's refusal to accept NOMA is to be commended ('a universe with a god is scientifically very different from one without a god') but the force of this idea has yet to find its way through to the appeasing forces of the anti-ID'ers.If the Creationist/ID people make this appear to be a battle between science and religion, and make science and atheism appear to be necessarily linked, they will win. The Creationist/ID people would love to have all religious people on their side - that is rather a large army!
It is important not to judge that other people are being irrational for believing what some of us (now) accept is untrue. When I was younger, I believed that there was a case to be made for telepathy, precognition, and psycho-kinesis. I would not have accepted at the time that this was irrational or "superstitious supernaturalism", and would probably have felt insulted by such a claim, because I came to this by reading books by J B Rhine of Duke University (and others) in which the SCIENCE supporting it was described. Susan Blackmore researched parapsychology for a long time. Science, not insults or other arguments, led both of us away from those earlier views. In the wider war, what is most important is the ability of people to think critically, if possible accompanied by scientific literacy, NOT that they hold specific views. The latter will follow.
132. We Urgently Need Your Help Now!!
Comment #196176 by Barry Pearson on June 19, 2008 at 12:00 pm
keith said: I'm a bit confused. Is this about trying to stop the teaching of Intelligent Design in science classes? If so, I thought the Dover trial had put paid to that. Or does the same fight have to be waged in every one of the 50 states of America? And will the same fight have to be waged again when the IDers change their name once more?The Dover trial had local effect only. I'm not sure whether this applied just to Dover, or to Pennsylvania as a whole. I believe that if the ID people had appealed, and lost, the scope would have been wider, to the extent of the appeal court. But they didn't appeal, probably for this reason.
So, yes, it does have to fought in every state, although the judgement from Judge Jones III will be influential. See this, from NCSE:
"Teaching Creationism in Schools"
http://youtube.com/watch?v=6GqNxAzaWBo
Styrer said: NOMA has been the most ridiculous and dangerous waste of time, endorsed happily by Eugenie Scott, who is at the forefront of all of this. NOMA, in its insistence that we can scientifically keep God and science separate, is breeding a new fucking type of propitiatory thinking. I'm fucking sick to death of seeing this come about. It was all too predictable. Even Richard, who is anti-NOMA, did not properly make of it an intellectual nullity. His proper condemnation of it could have at least made some of the shit we're reading now preventable. But no. We're left clapping our fucking hands at the latest outpourings of Miller.Where is your evidence for any of that? Your statement doesn't resemble what I've seen from Eugenie Scott, who has to play with the cards available.
What would YOUR approach have been in (say) Dover? What evidence could you have supplied that your approach would have won at Dover? Or that an anti-religious approach would even have got as far as the court, given that the court case against the school board was brought by religious parents, and decided in front of a religious judge?
Would this current case in Louisiana be easier or harder to fight had the Dover case been lost instead of won? What I see is that each court case narrows the options available to the Creationist/ID people. They can no longer ban the teaching of evolution. They can no longer force the teaching of Creation Science. Dover rules out the ID, at least there, but effectively elsewhere too. I don't know where "teach the controversy" has got to, but now it is down to "strengths and weaknesses". Given that the "bad guys" try to hide that religion is involved, what would be the point of fighting against religious views directly?
133. Darwinists for Jesus
Comment #195899 by Barry Pearson on June 19, 2008 at 2:24 am
YUDHIJIT BHATTACHARJEE said: Dowd shed his more conservative views and served as a pastor in the liberal United Church of Christ. Today he calls himself an evolutionary evangelist. For the last six years, he has traveled across North America with his wife, Connie Barlow, in a van that displays an image of two fish kissing each other - one labeled Jesus, the other Darwin - explaining to conservative and liberal congregations why understanding and accepting evolution will bring them closer to spiritual fulfillment.Being in the UK, I am not familiar with these specific audiences. I seriously wonder: who else COULD reach that audience? Is this a case of "better than nothing", where "nothing" is the only REAL alternative?
There is a massive risk with trying to attack on all fronts at once. This is a "war" of enlightenment being fought across generations, with several different "battles": "god versus no god"; "religion - good or bad"; "science - right or wrong"; "where should we find our ethics/morals"? For each battle, we need to advance where we can, and at least hold ground where we can't advance.
I don't agree with the sort of "all or nothing" approach implied (at least to me) by the following:
Fuller said: Darwinism V creationism is only one battle in the broader fight between reason and superstition. I can't think of much to say about this guy that's positive.Should we think of Dowd as half-wrong and try to stop him (and how)? Or half-right, and be in favour as long as the other half doesn't result in damage? (And his motivation appears to come from the religious part of his work - without that, perhaps he would give up. Having Dowd stop teaching evolution, but suggest education elsewhere, is probably not an option that is on the table).
Farooq said: He is just trying to square the circle. How can someone understand evolution and still beleive in the fairy tales of any religion?
Only thing missing here is the lack of courage to admit that religions have no place whatsoever in any scientific circle.
Styrer said: What an utter load of shite. Why cannot this shit be determined in a ring? Why can we not all agree that gobshites like Dowd and Ham will NEVER receive public attention if they have refused to agree to be set in a ring to fight out their supernatural doctrines by themselves, without having any fucking wider effect on the rest of us?
King of NH said: My fear is that this is not a scientist explaining how evolution works. Dowd is using a scientific theory as a theological tool.... Dowd should not teach evolution. But he could easily instruct his flock to seek out education on evolution, biology, history, etc.. If he did this, I would have no problems.
I think the following are more realistic and constructive:
Quine said: There are two parts to the battle going on out there. One is over the ToE in science class, and the other is over the general delusion of religion. I will take any win in the first even when it does not directly impact the second.In the Dover courtroom, Ken Miller was the right scientist to speak. Richard Dawkins would have been a wrong one (and I believe he accepts that). Next century, things will be different. But many millions of the existing religious people with influence will still be alive for decades to come.
AoClay said: I don't care who you are, the first will impact the second. They might try hard to make sure it doesn't and people will say it doesn't. Let's be honest, somebody out there right now is learning evolution and it is separating themselves from religion at least a little bit.
mordacious1 said: I'm always divided on this. I prefer people who know evolution is the truth to be atheists. On the other hand, a religious person who accepts evolution, is half way there.
catskill said: Quine has got the right idea here. Believing in magic, fanciful gods, and every ridiculous superstition under the sun is foolish and bizarre there is no doubt about that. Rejecting truth and pushing nonsense in our schools is absolutely unacceptable though. Let someone who speaks their language have a go at it.
Laurie Fraser said: After all, the main purpose is to get people, especially young people, to accept, and then revel in, the wonder of a scientific understanding of our origins. At least, then, they're more likely to become advocates for evolution themselves, within their own religious circles. Small steps can be productive.
I was mildly Christian at school (just because that was the nature of UK state schools in the 1960s) but it made no difference to my science education. And the latter gave me the mental toolkit I needed later to examine religions and see that they were man-made. Let's get our priorities right.
134. Darwinmania!
Comment #195342 by Barry Pearson on June 18, 2008 at 5:00 am
Animavore said: Am I they only person who sees this whole Darwin celebration as akin to some sort of religious celebration. It's no wonder creationists call us atheists 'Darwinists'. No one is celebrating Einstein or Newton or even Pastuer.Yes they did!
Google search of celebration of Einstein:
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=celebration of Einstein
Google search of celebration of Isaac Newton:
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=celebration of Isaac Newton
Google search of celebration of Pasteur:
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=celebration of Pasteur
And try Google search of celebration of Shakespeare's birthday:
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=celebration of Shakespeare's birthday
135. Darwinmania!
Comment #195288 by Barry Pearson on June 18, 2008 at 2:31 am
The next 18 months will be interesting! They will also leave behind lots of material which will be used in arguments about Creationism for the next decade or more.
Here is a useful list of activities:
http://darwin-online.org.uk/2009.html
136. Oystein Elgaroy - the Christian defender who became an Atheist
Comment #195258 by Barry Pearson on June 18, 2008 at 1:33 am
clearthinker said: Chuck - Holland - the least religious? Are you sure? Last time I looked church attendance in Holland was higher than in the UK, there were six MPs for the Christian party in the Dutch parliament and many of the churches are large. But perhaps you know better?A survey in 2005 gives supporting evidence:
Special EUROBAROMETER 225 "Social values, Science & Technology" (page 9):
http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_225_report_en.pdf
"I believe in God": UK: 38%, NL: 34%.
"I believe there is some sort of spirit or life force": UK: 40%, NL: 37%.
"I don't believe there is any sort of spirit, God or life force": UK: 20%, NL: 27%.
"Don't know": UK: 2%, NL: 2%.
That survey is well worth reading. As is this:
"WHY THE GODS ARE NOT WINNING by Gregory Paul & Phil Zuckerman"
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/paul07/paul07_index.html
137. Oystein Elgaroy - the Christian defender who became an Atheist
Comment #195237 by Barry Pearson on June 18, 2008 at 1:02 am
Oystein Elgaroy said: The disappointment over the book "The Dawkins Delusion" by the same McGrath was one of the factors. In this book McGrath tries to rebut the Atheist Richard Dawkins' attack on faith in the book "The God Delusion". "I read McGrath's book hoping to find some good answers to the challenges from Dawkins, but the book was a genuine disappointment. While reading it struck me that "is this really the best answer a theologian can come up with?" I don't think he came up with any good arguments. It was a surprisingly weak answer in many ways".It doesn't surprise me at all that McGrath played a role.
Mark Smith said: Well done Alister McGrath I say! Do you think he knows about his latest convert?
MarcLindenberg said: Man, McGrath's book was terrible... I read it expecting maybe some good arguments, but man it sucked.
tieInterceptor said: got to thanks Mr McGrath for writing such a weak book, seems to be shooting himself in the foot ehehe, :)
phil rimmer said: I think you're all being very unkind to McGrath. I think he wrote the very best book he could. Sadly, he just had lousy material to work with, religion.
Goldy said: Funny, eh? The athiest turned believer had a hand in turning the believer into an atheist :-)
Since I realised 20 years ago that I didn't believe in gods, I still have no "proof". But the strongest confidence-retainer since then hasn't been what other atheists say. (I didn't feel that "The God Delusion" confirmed my views - they didn't need that sort of confirmation).
What is important has been what highly motivated religious people over many centuries have failed to do. Millions of people have pored over every verse of the Bible, Koran, etc, and failed to find useful evidence of divine input. They have failed to find any other arguments that aren't easily refuted. In 2004 I attended a talk at (UK) Birmingham University by Alister McGrath called "The Twilight of Atheism". His tone and body language showed that he thought he had good arguments and was delivering them. I was still waiting for him to start when he finished.
It is often said (misleadingly) "you can't prove a negative", for example "you can't prove there isn't a body buried in that field". It is also said "absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence". But if millions of motivated people have tried to find that body and failed, you can at least have lots of confidence.
I wonder if theologians realise that one of the strongest cases for atheism is the weakness of THEIR own arguments? (I've just read #195229 by clearthinker, and I suspect the answer is "no they don't!)
138. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby
Comment #194597 by Barry Pearson on June 17, 2008 at 3:26 am
davelynch said: who do you mean by Creationists and other such interventionists if you do not mean Christians?Creationism is strong in some other religions too. Islam is an example - it appears that a large proportion of Muslims in the UK are Old World Creationists. There are also Jewish and Hindu Creationists.
The message is "evolution is nonsense, this shows that Allah did it". (There are various related themes, such as "the Koran is the final word of God, and tells us many things about the universe that science only found out centuries later. And the "Darwinism leads to attrocities" theme of "Expelled - No Intelligence Allowed" was described in Islamic Creationist literature long before Ben Stein developed it).
My reading is that Creationism is commonplace in several Islamic states. One particular case is Turkey, where some of the most impressive-looking Creationist material I have ever seen originated. This latter have been distributed worldwide. See:
"Harun Yahya - An Invitation to The Truth". (Their main person, Adnan Oktar, was recently sentenced to jail).
http://www.harunyahya.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harun_Yahya
Their main publication, (they have many others too), is "The Atlas of Creation" available as super-looking (big!) books but also as 3 PDF files:
http://api.fmanager.net/api_v1/productDetail.php?dev-t=EDCRFV&objectId=4066
Creationism comes in many flavours. Not only is it at the lunatic fringe of various religions, but there are several versions of it, totally incompatible with one-another. (And incompatible with other versions of those religions).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism
I think anyone brave or foolish enough to debate with Creationists should first establish what form their opponent supports. A good question might then be "why is your version the right one, not the rest?" This could be part of what epeeist says:
epeeist said: If you do decide to accept and the topic is on creationism then I would make sure that your opponent sticks to the brief. Criticising the Big Bang (unlikely) and evolution (very likely) isn't defending creationism. You want positive, evidential support to be presented. I know I keep waffling on about the burden of proof, but keep them on target and don't let them descend to discussing the "problems" of evolution.Creationists not only don't have a plausible case of their own, hence the need to attack evolution instead, but they can't even get their own act together.
And never let anyone get away with saying "science can't explain X". There is a word missing in that sentence - "yet". Once it is emphasised that the sentence should be "science can't explain X yet", the logical consequence is "so we must fund more science, and educate the next generation of scientists, so that science will be able to explain X in future". (I'm assuming that science really can't explain X yet - Creationists tend not to keep up with latest developments, and often science actually HAS now explained X).
139. Only a Theory
Comment #193988 by Barry Pearson on June 16, 2008 at 9:08 am
Steve Zara said: Incidentally, researching the claims of ID, I have noticed that there is another "bacterial flagellum". The archaea, a parallel group to the bacteria, have a flagellum of an entirely different construction, and of a different origin, that does the same job. Odd that a designer would have invented the same thing twice, when either one would have done the job?Three! Bacteria, Archaea, Eukaryotic. (With many sub-types):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flagellum
140. Only a Theory
Comment #193793 by Barry Pearson on June 16, 2008 at 3:51 am
King said: It is a dazzling display of the religious contempt for science and understanding. The Wedge is an attack on science and clearly demonstrates their intolerant attitude and dogmatic goals. It has probably been linked before, but I think this particular piece of nastiness should be read and re-read before we consider an idea that we can work with IDers to find a middle ground.Chuckle! The concept of a "middle ground" on this issue is equivalent to seeking a middle ground between "right" and "wrong", or between "enlightened" and "unenlightened".
Steve Zara said: You are right. We really must not give in at all. The controversy that ID wants taught is not about how life evolved, but whether or not science should give way to religion as a method of understanding reality. That is not something appropriate for science lessons.Yes! But attacking science is surely only a step towards attacking the rest of the enlightenment: freethinking, pluralism, secularism, tolerance. THAT is the real objective.
I've just been reading reviews of: "The Devil in Dover: An Insider's Story of Dogma v. Darwin in Small-town America", by Lauri Lebo
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1595582088/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top
She lives there, and knows the people. The instigators typically didn't even understand the science. Some had political objectives, such as:
The lawyers of the Thomas More Law Center did not go unobserved. Lauri provides descriptions of their part in the affair from fomenting the Dover school board's participation in a "revolution against evolution" through their sometimes lackluster courtroom performance. In particular, Richard Thompson is revealed as a man on a mission to whom all others are secondary considerations, including the people that his law firm agreed to "shield" from legal challenge. Thompson's sole concern, as related in the book, was putting a court record together to take to the Supreme Court.
141. Only a Theory
Comment #193759 by Barry Pearson on June 16, 2008 at 2:32 am
Steve Zara said: I disagree. The agenda of ID is clear, and they are not after evidence and observation, indeed as Behe's attitude has shown, they reject it. I believe they do directly challenge the process of science, with their idea that we can define a point at which science has to stop, and allow in God.I believe you are making an important point that many people with a scientific background don't grasp.
When I first obtained the "Wedge" document, I assumed it was going to explain that evolution had to be contested because it was scientifically inaccurate. In fact it didn't even address the scientific case. It addressed the need to replace a "materialistic worldview" in society with a religious, mainly Christian, worldview. Frankly, I don't think it matters much to many of those people whether evolution is good science; if it IS good science, that is an inconvenience to be overcome.
When I see and hear these debates, I feel that there are two different debates going on, and that one side may not realise this. One side is debating the quality of the evidence for evolution, (or other areas of science), in the expectation, or at least the hope, that this will cause people to accept it. The other side is debating how to establish a Christian worldview, and how to demolish the roadblocks in the way. But they try to avoid being too explicit about that, except when generating support and fund raising, because it will be used against them.
Many of us here love science, and are willing to be distracted by the science in these arguments. Much of what we say it irrelevant to the real battle.
142. Only a Theory
Comment #193752 by Barry Pearson on June 16, 2008 at 2:05 am
Shergar said: How long before we are fighting this same fight here in Britain against this insidious affront to reason and true scientific analysis of ideas?I posted information about the UK situation in another article. Here is what I said:
danielrendall asked: Do we have an organisation equivalent to the NCSE in the US to counter the propaganda of the fundamentalists?
Barry Pearson said: The nearest we have appears to be the British Centre for Science Education (BCSE). It is not in the same league as the NCSE:
http://www.bcseweb.org.uk/
They link to other initiatives at:
http://www.bcseweb.org.uk/index.php/Main/Links
Frankly, UK groups are under-resourced, and probably need lots of help. I wonder how we can help? I have just made a donation to BCSE and applied for membership.
143. Stephen Hawking: ministers' £80m error puts science at risk
Comment #193739 by Barry Pearson on June 16, 2008 at 1:35 am
Lemniscate said: This really upsets me. The current government have been trying to apply an ultra-narrow business ethic to all spheres - the NHS and science for example. Making science purely utilitarian will end in ruin. The point about science is that you can't predict what new ideas will be useful. Cutting physics funding is just an expression of this lack of respect for science for its own sake.This UK government has favoured centralisation of decision-making from the start. An example is undermining self-provision of pensions, then trying to replace them with ever-more complicated schemes for government hand-outs.
Has everyone had a meeting and decided science doesn't matter as much anymore?
I think much of this comes down to lack of trust. This government, especially Gordon Brown, simply doesn't trust citizens or institutions to make the right decisions. Hence repeated complaints of "the nanny state". Instead of encouraging charities by trusting them, ditto schools, ditto police, the government assumes it has to micro-manage them.
I think the logic may be something like "left to themselves people and organisations will only get it right at most 80% of the time; so we need mechanisms to cause them to get it right 100% of the time". Needless to say, the government is incapable to getting anywhere that 80%, however much money they throw at the problem. 80% may actually be the best that society can achieve. (There are obvious parallels with how natural selection makes do with what it has available, and the concept of perfect design is inapplicable).
The government fails to realise that much of what drives people and organisations is motivation based on the belief they they have the personal power to make a difference. Take away "initiative", and motivation and the possibility of innovative solutions dissipates.
Comment #193732 by Barry Pearson on June 16, 2008 at 1:05 am
ketch22 said: Thanks for once again making me relieved I am a Christian. Evidence for God: 1. God makes sense of the universe's origin: both philosophically and scientifically it can be argued that the universe had a beginning.... 2. God makes sense of the universe's complexity.... 3. God makes sense of objective moral values.... 5. God can be immediately experiencedThis is a general question: to what extent have theologians and philosophers addressed this issue of multiple gods that ketch22 appears to duck?
Steve Zara said: If you are going state that your personal subjective experiences have unquestionable truth on this basis, you have to accept everyone else's personal beliefs about Gods. You have to accept Poseidon and Thor.
Polydactyl said: As Steve Zara asks, why do you believe that the Christian god is uniquely true?
Why not one of the others? You must have some basis for preferring one god over the rest: is it only 'personal experience' or what?
The reason I ask is that the "multiple gods / multiple religions" issue was what first tipped me from being an agnostic to realising "I don't believe in gods" about 20 years ago. (Other things consolidated my atheism later). It is as though a person is claiming that a "Fvhffdbxie" exists, yet that person has Multiple Personality Disorder, and keeps changing his mind about how many Fvhffdbxies there are and what their nature is. Do you believe that person if there is nothing else making a case for Fvhffdbxie(s)? Religion (in the broad) replaces that person. I am a (highly analytical) engineer with a scientific education, not in any sense a philosopher, so my ways of thinking on this topic are not subtle or deep.
I have little doubt that ketch22 can't satisfactorily answer that issue. But has there been ANY serious attempt over the centuries to resolve it? (I've heard of Henotheism, and no doubt there are other topics, but theologians I hear and read appear to bypass the question entirely. I draw my own conclusions why). A few names would help - I can go on from there.
Thanks in advance for any help.
145. As the world becomes smaller, the need to understand each other's faith grows
Comment #193305 by Barry Pearson on June 15, 2008 at 8:27 am
pkruger said: We all wanna know how to live together on this planet? Well, most of us here know the answer--lose the fricken religion, dammit!That just won't happen. Religions will be around for the rest of this century, at least. We need an alternative.
I believe the answer has to be to identify (and somehow enforce) roles for religions that enable people with different faiths and none at all to coexist. That is why I keep suggesting the idea that religions are hobbies, and everyone should act that way. It is a model for coexistence that can't be criticised as totalitarian or untried or contrary to human rights.
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/gods/hobby.htm
Comment #193265 by Barry Pearson on June 15, 2008 at 5:17 am
elvenearth said: The vast majority of Young-Earthers do not believe that God created every species, but rather that he created "kinds" of animals, which later diverged and developed (evolved) into the species of animals we have on Earth today. So for example there would have been a Camelid kind that, under various population pressures and environmental factors, evolved to become species of camels and Llamas etcOne name they use for that is Baraminology:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baraminology
http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Baraminology/id/1926872
147. As the world becomes smaller, the need to understand each other's faith grows
Comment #193221 by Barry Pearson on June 15, 2008 at 12:54 am
Cartomancer said: Faith has no intrinsic mechanism for discerning the wisdom from the foolishness... Reason, on the other hand, gives us a basis for knowing that...Yes. My way of thinking of this is that there are 3 major obstacles to extending our knowledge and understanding of anything complicated, such as society (or the universe):
Brian English said: You know how sometimes you implicitly understand something and may have even held it in your mind clearly but then it's slipped? What the great Cartomancer wrote above just explicitly stated what I probably already understood so well, why faith is so pernicuous.
1. There are vastly more ways to be wrong than to be right.
2. Knowledge and understanding come in dribs and drabs, not all at once.
3. The inquiry is conducted by fallible human beings.
If you systematically address each of these obstacles, you end up with "the scientific method". Evidence-based reasoning; theories and paradigm shifts; scepticism; peer review; etc.
If you fail to address these, you end up with religions (plural). "The religious method" resolves conflict by suppression and/or by spawning new religions. Incremental knowledge typically meets resistance, often for centuries.
148.