101. Copy of The God Delusion Purchased for $20,000

Comment #17502 by jeepyjay on January 14, 2007 at 7:18 am

Homo economicus wrote: "May have to try the Leicester Secular Society if they have anything like that sense of fun." Thanks for thinking of us, as a matter of fact tonight if you're quick you can catch a Martial Arts Display by the Karate Club that use our basement; and on 28th January we're celebrating Burns Night (join up in advance and its free).

102. Reason, Unfettered by Faith

Comment #17349 by jeepyjay on January 13, 2007 at 2:21 am

zoro: First you said: "Deductive logic never yields new knowledge: it leads only to information that's consistent with the premisses." Now you concede: "Deduction certainly can lead to new insight or new understanding or even new knowledge" thanks for that.

You go on: "But insofar as it's correct that there's an objective reality "out there", upon which we can all eventually come to agreement, then "objective knowledge" of it can't be increased via deduction." This again is clearly wrong.

Supposing that we accept Newton's law of gravitation as established then we can use it to deduce Kepler's laws of planetary motion. Similarly if we accept Maxwell's electromagnetic equations we can use them to deduce many practical results concerning the operation of electromagnetic equipment.

I agree with you and Dawkins that theology is a vacuous subject. There's no need to argue that with me. All I'm arguing against is your thesis that seems to regard "reason" as somehow unscientific.

To suppose that theorems (such as those of Pythagoras, Appollonius, Menelaus etc) are inherent in Euclid's assumptions (axioms, definitions etc) and ignore the deductive process by which they can be proved seems to be a sort of irrational mysticism on your part.

103. Reason, Unfettered by Faith

Comment #17169 by jeepyjay on January 11, 2007 at 11:47 am

In common with many others, zoro claims: "Deductive logic never yields new knowledge: it leads only to information that's consistent with the premisses." I don't think this is true. Euclid's Elements sets down a series of very simple assumptions and by a chain of deductive reasoning arrives at the Pythagorean Theorem (and many others). Is this not new knowledge? It may indeed be implied by the assumptions, but the implication is by no means obvious.

Whether the Pythagorean theorem is true in the "real" world (as opposed to the mathematical fantasy world of Euclidean Geometry) of course is another matter. Who has seen a "point" with no dimensions, or a line of no thickness? Applied mathematics sets up an approximate correlation between the mathematical model and reality, where points are dots and lines are paths of light rays for instance. A lot of other aspects of the mathematical model are discarded or ignored (for instance that between any two points there is an infinite continuum of other points).

The point I was trying to make about mathematics is that if we allow that it is a legitimate way of thinking, of use to science, then how can we disallow other uses of reason, applied to abstract concepts as opposed to empirical data?

For instance metaphysical or philosophical musings about the nature of the universe or of human society, ethics and so on? Even about hypothetical gods? So long as the hypothetical nature is recognised.

104. Reason, Unfettered by Faith

Comment #17075 by jeepyjay on January 10, 2007 at 3:54 pm

I'm finding this "epistemological love-fest" as JohnC calls it, fascinating. I hesitate to spark off zoro again, but zoro, what's your take on infinity in mathematics? Is it just fantasy in the same way that angels are? Do the different varieties of infinity, countable, continuum, etc, exist in reality? Or is it all a mathematicians Platonist religion? (I incline to think that it is.)

105. Reason, Unfettered by Faith

Comment #16882 by jeepyjay on January 9, 2007 at 11:22 am

In response to zoro who wrote: "Kudos to Krauss, but I wish he wouldn't "buy into" the clerics' terminology: the confrontation is not between faith and reason, but between faith and science."

In fact many people, myself included, understand "reason" to mean a combination of logic and empiricism, not just logic alone. Thus "reason" includes "science" but is wider, including philosophy and mathematics as well as natural philosophy (as science used to be called).

106. Without God, Gall Is Permitted

Comment #16383 by jeepyjay on January 6, 2007 at 11:38 am

To zoro and John Phillips: You may estimate the probability of existence of God is near zero, but would you bet your life on it?

107. Executing Saddam Hussein was an Act of Vandalism

Comment #15814 by jeepyjay on January 3, 2007 at 6:54 am

There was nothing special about Saddam. Have you not heard of "the banality of evil"? Power corrupts. The problem that needs to be addressed is not how to stop such people gaining power, it is how to depose them once they have the power. As for keeping people in prison for purposes of psychological research - even prisoners have human rights.

108. What are you optimistic about? Why?

Comment #15744 by jeepyjay on January 2, 2007 at 12:23 pm

Rationalists aren't optimists. They are realists. I read a few of the other submissions to the Edge question and found the relentless optimism maddening. It makes many of the contributors sound like they're on ecstasy or something. Calm down all of you please! Get real!

109. Beliefwatch: Blasphemy (Challenge)

Comment #15741 by jeepyjay on January 2, 2007 at 12:03 pm

If you want to do some blaspheming that is no joke, how about taking on Mohammed or Allah? Just a few cartoons last year caused a whole lot of trouble.

110. What I found out about God

Comment #14669 by jeepyjay on December 24, 2006 at 4:46 am

It's a bit odd that Humphrys doesn't mention his other two interviewees. Didn't he get anything from them to think about? I thought the rabbi was the most candid, about the idea of god evolving over time until it has now almost disappeared. One more push and it may be gone. The archbishop was extremely vague aboout everything.

111. The Grinch Delusion: An Atheist Can Believe in Christmas

Comment #13372 by jeepyjay on December 17, 2006 at 10:08 am

I have to adnmit to being something of a Grinch about Christmas. I shall be spending it as quietly as possible, and trying to avoid those endless carols on all the TV and radio stations. One carol service a year would be sufficient. Where's my humbugs.

112. Book answers the atheists' prayers

Comment #11991 by jeepyjay on December 9, 2006 at 3:16 am

"When he rebuts St Anselm's 1078 ontological arguments for the existence of God, ..."

Actually he only had one argument as I recall, but they were published in the year 1078. Yorkshire Post subeditors at work?

113. Humphrys In Search of God

Comment #6385 by jeepyjay on November 14, 2006 at 2:25 am

I thought the interview with the Rabbi, Jonathan Sacks, which I heard this morning, was by far the best of the three programmes. Unlike Williams and Ramadan, Sacks didn't evade the questions and in fact answered them with considerable candour.

It seems that his God regards the human race as now being grown up enough not to need his direct intervention (no partings of the Red Sea any more) and that the story of Abraham and the sacrifice of Isaac (aborted at the last minute) was when God (or was it men's idea of God?) changed to being merciful rather than demanding human blood sacrifice.

Perhaps when human beings have grown up a bit more God will be able to go away altogether.

114. Humphrys In Search of God

Comment #4974 by jeepyjay on November 7, 2006 at 4:38 am

I listened to the interview this morning with Tariq Ramadan and couldn't find anything much to disagree with in what he said, except when he got onto religion. It's difficult to see any connection between his religious belief and his otherwise rational secular views.

115. Surviving 'Jesus Camp'

Comment #4243 by Jeepyjay on November 3, 2006 at 2:50 am

According to this report, Ted Haggard has resigned, due to accusations against him of homosexual activity:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/nation/4307615.html

I find it difficult to believe someone could be such a hypocrite or behave in such a stupid way.