Comments by bitbutter

101. Would the World Be Safer Without Religion?

Comment #43412 by bitbutter on May 21, 2007 at 10:11 am

@dr benway

Devil's advocate here. Imagine an angel appears to you and tells you something about God. Could happen, maybe.

I'm willing to allow people faith regarding subjective experiences no one else can corroborate.

If a being that it seemed to make sense to call a god made himself known to me through some kind of personal revelation, i might become a theist. If i did though, it wouldn't be a question of faith. I would have been lead to the conclusion that a god exists by evidence (albeit evidence of questionable quality).

102. Would the World Be Safer Without Religion?

Comment #43405 by bitbutter on May 21, 2007 at 9:40 am

Mango: i agree (i like the finger dam analogy). Here's something i posted from a previous thread

[some people] think that - like the amount of energy in the universe - the amount of violence in the world is a constant, and if you remove one reason for fighting then another one will popup to take it's place, like wack-a-mole.

I'm not convinced. Articles like Pinker's 'a history of violence' point out that the amount of violence in the world does change. We live in an increasingly peaceful world. The amount of violence isn't a constant.

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/pinker07/pinker07_index.html

103. Would the World Be Safer Without Religion?

Comment #43276 by bitbutter on May 21, 2007 at 3:36 am

@logicel: yes i'm sure you're right. He implies that the 9/11 attackers weren't _True_ muslims.

Killing in the name of God or belief, which shames every religion, ought to give the person of faith pause.

and here he seems to demonstrate that he doesn't see extremists as belonging under his umbrella: 'people of faith'.

104. Would the World Be Safer Without Religion?

Comment #43265 by bitbutter on May 21, 2007 at 3:15 am

We ought to feel the very worst about violence, or hatred, perpetrated by those who say they believe what we believe. But this does not mean we should give up those beliefs. Rather, we must work to make belief sincere.

Did i read that right? Religious belief can lead to violence so the best thing to do it to believe even more strongly?

In what sense is the suicide bombing Jihadist not _already_ completely sincere in his religious belief?

105. Goodness without Godliness

Comment #42851 by bitbutter on May 20, 2007 at 1:37 am

(posting here because the artcle doesnt accept commets)

An atheist asserts there is no God.

'Atheism' for people who call themselves atheists usually means lack of a positive belief in god.

'Atheism' for theists and agnostics usually means positive belief that there is no god.

From Michael Martin:

If you look up 'atheism' in the dictionary, you will probably find it defined as the belief that there is no God. Certainly many people understand atheism in this way. Yet many atheists do not, and this is not what the term means if one considers it from the point of view of its Greek roots. In Greek 'a' means 'without' or 'not' and 'theos' means 'god.' From this standpoint an atheist would simply be someone without a belief in God, not necessarily someone who believes that God does not exist. According to its Greek roots, then, atheism is a negative view, characterized by the absence of belief in God.

106. Atheists with Attitude: Why do they hate Him?

Comment #41463 by bitbutter on May 16, 2007 at 6:43 am

@CJ22

Unlike bitbutter, I do tend to think the world would NOT be a more peaceful place without religion. Maybe slightly. But I think humans would find other causes to rally around, and be equally as fervant about the rightness of their cause and the neccesity of doing others in who don't subscribe.

Ive spoken with a few people who think this too. They think that - like the amount of energy in the universe - the amount of violence in the world is a constant, and if you remove one reason for fighting then another one will popup to take it's place, like wack-a-mole.

I'm not convinced. Articles like Pinker's 'a history of violence' point out that the amount of violence in the world does change. We live in an increasingly peaceful world. The amount of violence isn't a constant.

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/pinker07/pinker07_index.html

107. Atheists with Attitude: Why do they hate Him?

Comment #41413 by bitbutter on May 16, 2007 at 5:12 am

Are we really going to tame the fervor of an extremist imam's mosque in Waziristan by weakening the plush-toy creed of a nondenominational church in Chappaqua?

No, and you've missed the point. We have no footing from which to challenge religious fundamentalism until we've dismantled the unspoken law that any belief, as long as it's religious, is automatically worthy of respect.

108. Atheists with Attitude: Why do they hate Him?

Comment #41406 by bitbutter on May 16, 2007 at 5:01 am

@philip, i'm 90% sure that Dawkins advocated 'Militant atheism' himself a while back. It was in a lecture he gave to an academic audience a few years ago (he was wearing a beige suit). Sorry i don't have the link to hand.

Militant in this context doesn't bother me ("Having a combative character; aggressive, especially in the service of a cause: a militant political activist."). but 'extremist' and 'fundamentalist' certainly do.

As does the lie that atheists hate god/jesus ("Why do they hate Him?") what an absurd idea.

109. Atheists with Attitude: Why do they hate Him?

Comment #41397 by bitbutter on May 16, 2007 at 4:46 am

That's more plausible than what Sam Harris has to say on the subject. He maintains that religious belief not only aggravates such conflicts but is "the explicit cause" of them.

Its perfectly plausible that religion is the explicit cause of certain conflicts.

There are plenty of examples of violence that would not have been possible without the element of religious thinking.

If we accept an inevitable background of bubbling tribalistic tendency in human society it's sensible to identify religion (when it channels that tendency towards violence by demonising the out-group, providing moral justification for aggression towards them and even promising supernatural rewards for attacking them) as an 'explicit cause' of conflicts.

110. How dare you call me a fundamentalist

Comment #40443 by bitbutter on May 14, 2007 at 9:50 am

and 'guerrilla' marketing which includes getting ones own supporters to write favourable reviews or vote in competitions claiming that one's champion is 'one of the 100 most influential people in the world' or 'The God Delusion' is the best book ever.

.. and the way to get your supporters to do that (without asking them to), or indeed the way to get supporters in the first place is to write a powerful, clear, even life-changing book.

The trouble is that his definition of 'evidence' is so limited that it will allow no possibility of anything outwith the world of the physical.

lol well no, of course it won't. Science is doing pretty so far well despite this limitation, oh no.. wait _because_ of this limitation.

111. Let us pray for the soul of Richard Dawkins

Comment #40310 by bitbutter on May 14, 2007 at 5:32 am

Copy of my post to the original thread..

Odone's article is the latest in a string of whiny complaints against TGD that seems to append ' of substance' to the slot title 'Comment is free'.

The rabid attacks by Dawkins and his camp-followers spur even the most mild-mannered Christian, Muslim or Jew into a hard-line position.

Orly? do you have any examples?

My mum listened to TGD audio book lately, she's a mild-mannered catholic. I'm happy to report that, contrary to Odone's alarming prediction, she hasn't transformed into a bomb-hurling gun-toting fundamentalist. Rather she appreciated the opportunity to think carefully and clearly about her faith, and the role of religious faith in modern society.

112. Consciousness Comes from DNA

Comment #39996 by bitbutter on May 12, 2007 at 3:12 pm

@thanny

These mirror tests confirm only that the animals in question (including humans) are vain enough to be interested in looking at themselves.

The fact that the animals even know that they are looking at themselves is the crucial thing though.

My cat also ignores her reflection in the mirror now after a period of being afraid of it. the fact that she now ignores it doesn't mean that she understands that it's herself that she's seeing. other explanations might include that she now knows that the cat in the mirror never attacks, never washes her, doesn't smell of anything and is otherwise an uninteresting playmate. Perhaps she even understands that it's not real (like the images on the television or shadows).

113. The torture of the grave Islam and the afterlife

Comment #38107 by bitbutter on May 7, 2007 at 1:52 am

"Those who have lost a relative in a violent and shocking death - in the bombings in Baghdad, for instance - may find some consolation in this belief."

That may well be the sickest thing ever written. In what possible way could the relative of a loved one who had been killed by a suicide bomber kind comfort in the thought that while their loved one could be suffering the horrors of a Muslims afterlife the killer is lapping it up in paradise?

I think the suggestion here is that the victims of the bomb would go to paradise anyway, and that idea is consoling for their relatives. Presumably you get to skip the trail in the grave if your body is badly damaged enough when you die.

114. Interview with Pierre Rehov

Comment #37931 by bitbutter on May 6, 2007 at 10:26 am

Id like to watch the documentary. I'm disappointed that Rehov declared that 'this is not Islam' though. On what authority is he able to distinguish between 'true' Islam and other varieties? cherry picking.

115. Against All Gods, by A C Grayling

Comment #36094 by bitbutter on April 30, 2007 at 7:29 am

Apologists for faith, he says, are an evasive community in a "mist-shrouded domain" of sophistry. Fair enough, but much more dangerous than religious faith is how the faithful are prepared to defend their beliefs

This is a false, or at least very problematic, distinction. Faith can tell people that particular (otherwise abhorrent) actions are justified if done in service of their god. We have to acknowledge that religious faith is itself responsible for just how far some people are willing to go to defend their beliefs.

116. Doctors Opposing Circumcision: An Appeal for Misha

Comment #35691 by bitbutter on April 28, 2007 at 10:33 am

@fonex_86
"If foreskin were so useless, it would have disappeared, or at least would have been for the most part removed by natural selection. The fact that it is still quite intact pretty much says something about it."

Not really. An attribute would only disappear if there were strong selection pressures _against_ those who possessed it.

117. Doctors Opposing Circumcision: An Appeal for Misha

Comment #35689 by bitbutter on April 28, 2007 at 10:25 am

(thanks logicel for the paypal info, i noticed that a paypal link has now been added it to the appeal page also)

118. The God disunion: there is a place for faith in science, insists Winston

Comment #35561 by bitbutter on April 27, 2007 at 3:50 pm

thanks for the link to the lecture. I found it dreadfully rambling and very thin on arguments.

About his points (the ones i could detect):

"There is evidence for a 'religiousity gene'. therefore it must confer a survival advantage."

This is an unjustified conclusion considering the alternatives that are suggested in TGD and Breaking the spell surely he's read these?

Dawkins and the rabbi: "they're both right" (in what sense are they both right?)

Winston's complaint about Dawkins comment about evolution - 'i call it a fact' - is disingenuous. It's clear that Dawkins is using 'fact' in the common sense (ie. the chance that it's not true is very small).

The discussion of non-genetic systems of inheritance: the point is what? we're always improving on theories, leaning new things? am i missing something or is he only arguing against his own straw man: 'science has all the answers'?

Dawkins is too arrogant: about what? he doesn't say, or i missed it (unless that it's the selfish gene idea).

Frustrating. My main complaint; Just because we don't know for sure what the truth is doesn't mean, as Winston seems to imply, that we aren't in a perfectly good position to point out that certain claims are false.

119. Fighting Words: A wartime lexicon

Comment #35071 by bitbutter on April 26, 2007 at 6:06 am

Great excerpt, i will be buying it too i think.

The title is a dreadful choice though, the "How Religion Poisons Everything" part. This is seriously overstating the case and needlessly supplies his critics with potent ammunition before they even open the book (in a way that i don't believe 'The God Delusion' did - despite the widespread complaints about that title).

Religion doesn't poison _everything_, sometimes religion is even useful, or even leads to Good Things.

120. The God disunion: there is a place for faith in science, insists Winston

Comment #34711 by bitbutter on April 25, 2007 at 1:33 am

"...it is very patronising to call a serious book about other peoples' views of the universe and everything a delusion."

Also: assuming that we all agree that people can be deluded: is it also very patronising to call a delusion a delusion?

121. The God disunion: there is a place for faith in science, insists Winston

Comment #34703 by bitbutter on April 25, 2007 at 12:58 am

I quite enjoyed winston's tv episodes. It's very disappointing to find out that he's a traitor to science and reason (edit) when it comes to religion.

further to stewe17s comment:
"there is a body of scientific opinion from my scientific colleagues who seem to believe that science is the absolute truth"

That tiresome straw man again. I certainly never got that impression that the authors he mentions are talking about absolute truths, most of the time simply 'best guesses'.

"and that religious and spiritual values are to be discounted"

Insofar as these 'values' try to tell people about the way the universe is of course they should be thrown out.

122. The Video: Bill O'Reilly Interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #34401 by bitbutter on April 24, 2007 at 1:14 am

I'm glad this interview happened, despite the ugly format. The more talk generated about atheism the better, and the more mentions of The God Delusion on TV the better.

I don't know how much my heavy bias influences my impression of this but i also think O'Reilly came off quite badly.

Great work RD.

123. Dinesh D'Souza says I don't exist: an atheist at Virginia Tech

Comment #33899 by bitbutter on April 22, 2007 at 2:14 pm

@denoir

His argument was that in time of grief people turn to religion, not atheism.

Of course. But this is a strange way of framing things. Atheism isn't obliged to offer consolation; it is after all, only an absence of a certain type of belief. It's not a belief system so i think comparing it to religion is often a non starter. Perhaps the discussion should have been about how, and whether, humanism (for example) can offer consolation to compare with what people find in religion.

I think it probably can, but that it's efficacy depends very much on the person's prior beliefs.

In other words it's not at all surprising that most people in America might turn to a religious type of consolation, because they already hold some kind of religious belief. For me, a reflection on other things would be much more effective in a time of crisis, since i don't have a religious world view.

124. Sam's Flea!

Comment #32834 by bitbutter on April 18, 2007 at 12:03 pm

lfacc site articles have a space for comments, please consider re-posting points you made here over on this site too

(this is the one related to the radio interview)
http://www.letterfromachristiancitizen.com/2007/04/10/radio-interview/

125. Doctors Opposing Circumcision: An Appeal for Misha

Comment #32410 by bitbutter on April 17, 2007 at 2:59 am

How does one go about donating? (a DOC paypal account would be handy).

126. Genie shows barred by Islam, clerics say

Comment #32150 by bitbutter on April 16, 2007 at 2:06 am

chamber: if you want to ask how genes got started the forums would be a better place to post that question.

127. The Age of Darwin

Comment #32147 by bitbutter on April 16, 2007 at 1:54 am

If some trait, like emotion, can cause big problems, then it must also provide bigger benefits, because nature will not expend energy on things that don't enhance the chance of survival.

Or of course the trait itself might not bestow any survival advantage, but be the accidental byproduct of something else that does.

128. Against God

Comment #32059 by bitbutter on April 15, 2007 at 11:52 am

I wonder what McGrath considers to be the "limitations of reason", because I have absolutely no idea what the **** he's talking about here.

Quite, reason doesn't always lead you to thoughts that make you feel good and apparently reason can't satisfy those who experience a 'yearning for something more' (eh. self evidently :)).

All in all, not serious deficiencies i think.

129. Militant atheists: too clever for their own good

Comment #30119 by bitbutter on April 7, 2007 at 2:07 am

Really snide, underhand stuff this. Just one of the less blatant examples:

The anti-God party was represented by Professor Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion. Christopher Hitchens, the English polemicist who has long made his living in America, and Professor A. C. Grayling, who has that big mane of swept-back hair which says "philosopher" just as clearly as a pinstripe suit used until recently to say "Tory".

Against the motion were the archaeologist Nigel Spivey, Rabbi Julia Neuberger, and Professor Roger Scruton.

Careful poisoning of the well with his introductions of the 'anti-god' party; equivalent introductions are notably absent from the other three.

Charles Moore ought to be ashamed of himself.

130. Selfish genes may drive out disease

Comment #28610 by bitbutter on March 30, 2007 at 5:15 am

Fascinating stuff. I read elsewhere that the modified mosquitoes were also given green eyes for easy identification, though i'm not sure if it's the same study.

Genetically altered mosquitoes will have to be released in large numbers into affected areas in order for introduced genes to establish themselves, Hay said, but previous efforts to release sterile mosquitoes have shown that this is feasible.

this confused me, i think i'm misunderstanding something here: how could sterile mosquitoes have 'established themselves'?

131. Dawkins says religion is 'like sucking a dummy'

Comment #28492 by bitbutter on March 29, 2007 at 11:43 am

It is better to throw a line to a drowning man than to explain to him why the waterlogged wreckage he is clinging to is sinking.

nicely put! and i agree.

In terms of converting people i think the best approaches are along these lines:

'look at this example of how people get along really well without religion'.

And 'let's look at why religion is so appealing, and why it can be very difficult to let it go'.

I think Dennet's book (Breaking the spell) does a valiant job of taking the second approach, but i'm afriad it's not focussed enough to deliver the message with the required cogency (particularly when compared to Dawkins and Harris' writing).

I'm having difficulty getting through it, i imagine a typical believer would be even less compelled to stick it out.

132. Send The God Delusion to your MP

Comment #28167 by bitbutter on March 28, 2007 at 7:35 am

Reading other peoples covering letters has been useful, here's my version (NB. not thoroughly grammar/spelling checked!)

---

Dear xxx,

I have sent you a copy of 'The God Delusion' by Richard Dawkins. I hope you have the chance to read it and that you enjoy it as much as i did. Perhaps you will even find some of your beliefs challenged and change your mind about some things as I also did.

I believe we have a duty to attempt to understand our world and it's mechanisms to the best of our abilities, and to use our knowledge to minimise human suffering wherever we can. I firmly believe that religious faith and its promotion is counterproductive to this aim.

I think Richard Dawkins is in the best position to make this argument so i took part in a group initiative to send his book to Britain's MPs. I chose you as the recipient of my book because xxxxxxxxx.

The point from the book that resonated the most strongly with me was this:

The problem we face is that if we accord respectability to religious faith we must not only accord respect to religious moderatism (as our society does at the moment) but also to religious fundamentalism. The two are not qualitatively different, one is not an perversion of the other. They are both founded on irrational faith. Adherents to each differ from each other only in terms of how literally they interpret the words in ancient texts.

I believe that the taboo in our culture that has made it inappropriate to talk plainly about the core beliefs of the Abrahamic religions prevents us from having a proper discussion about the growing problem of fundamentalist violence (at this time Islam is in the spotlight, but inspiration for violence can just as easily be found in Christian texts).

There seems to be a distinct unwillingness to acknowledge that the motivation of religious fundamentalists who carry out terror attacks and other acts of violence comes from their supernatural beliefs, even when the attackers plainly tell us that this is the case. I believe that this refusal to see what's in front of our noses is a grave liability at this time.

There are many other issues addressed in the book that deserve discussion too but i will try to keep this letter succinct and let Professor Dawkins do the talking.

I'm sure you are very busy so if you only have chance to read part of the book i strongly recommend chapter 8 'What's wrong with religion? Why be so hostile?'. It should take about ten minutes to read.

Thank you in advance for your time and your consideration of the arguments presented here.

Yours Sincerely,

xxx

133. Richard Dawkins at The Sunday Times Oxford Literary Festival

Comment #28114 by bitbutter on March 28, 2007 at 4:16 am

Moderator: you believe [muslims] to be wrong?

McGrath: I would want to say that i believe Christianity is true, not in an arrogant way, i hope in a way that says i want to talk about this and enter into a respectful principled dialogue incase i'm wrong on this one.

Mr McGrath: you seem to indicate that your mind isn't closed to the possibility that you're mistaken in your faith in christianity, but i don't think this is really the case.

If this _is_ really so I'm curious to know what kind of thing would persuade you that you are in fact mistaken?

134. Gimme That Old Time Religion (Bashing)

Comment #27415 by bitbutter on March 24, 2007 at 1:02 pm

Jonathan Dore and nine9s already made the points that occurred to me while reading this. Thanks for putting them more eloquently that i could have.

[Jonathan Dore] By agreeing with extremists on the fundamental point of God's existence and Jesus's divinity, liberal Christians have no clear grounds on which to stand from which to refute the extremists' interpretation. They have already conceded the most important ground of all to the extremists: namely, the belief that there is a supernatural god who commands certain actions and condemns others (among other things). Once this ground is conceded, "debate" or "criticism" between religious groups of varying degrees of moderation becomes a mere footling question of which biblical verses one likes and which one doesn't, which aspects of doctrine one prefers to emphasize and which one doesn't, which interpretive traditions one holds dear and which one doesn't. What it doesn't provide is any clear, rational, empirical, neutral basis on which to make a judgement between these conflicting truth claims. Only standing outside religion altogether does that.

135. If only gay sex caused global warming

Comment #27099 by bitbutter on March 23, 2007 at 6:20 am

I hadn't read about global warming's failure to capture the human imagination in these terms before. Interesting piece.

(also: i think MartinSGill's reply about the gay sex reference is sound)

136. Debate between Alister McGrath and Peter Atkins

Comment #27058 by bitbutter on March 23, 2007 at 4:00 am

Much as McGrath irritates my socks off, and i think his position is indefensible, he does seem to be a skillful orator. The impression that he's thought the issues through is helped a long way just by his talking clearly and slowly, without any stopgaps.

A useful debating trick would be to ask the audience to just insert "Zeus" for whenever your theist opponent argues for God. The absurdity should immediately become self evident for the fence-sitters.

:) i'd like to see someone use that.

137. Debate between Alister McGrath and Peter Atkins

Comment #27051 by bitbutter on March 23, 2007 at 3:36 am

I enjoyed this. In particular i was happy to be reminded of this piece of wisdom:

"Why are we here?" : 'why' questions presuppose an underlying intentionality, a creator. This is an unjustified supposition. Hence, it's the wrong question.

138. Lonely Atheists of the Global Village

Comment #26396 by bitbutter on March 19, 2007 at 5:33 am

"[Harris] While it is true that such men are sometimes enemies of organized religion, they are never especially rational. In fact, their public pronouncements are often delusional. . . . The problem with such tyrants is not that they reject the dogma of religion, but that they embrace other life-destroying myths."

In other words, delusional atheists are not really atheists.

This transparent strawman frustrated me too much to continue. Where has Harris ever claimed that there was no such thing as a delusional atheist?

139. Non-believers can be bigoted too

Comment #25663 by bitbutter on March 14, 2007 at 3:30 pm

There seems to be a type of writer responding to the 'new atheism' books who competes to create the biggest, most grossly distorted straw men. This one's a strong contender for the trophy.

Mindrebel:

A true atheist abhors irrationiality, and all of those men were irrationial, therefore, they could not, by definition be atheists.

The 'no true scotsman' fallacy again. This is severely faulty reasoning MR.. (irrespective of hitler's belief/non-belief).

140. Send The God Delusion to your MP

Comment #24900 by bitbutter on March 9, 2007 at 5:12 am

A new 'sub pledge' that tries to help the success of the main one:

http://www.pledgebank.com/cas-support

"I will register again for the 'church-and-state' pledge if it hasn't reached its target by saturday 24th march but only if 10 other people (or more!) will do the same."

141. Atheist Apostle

Comment #24523 by bitbutter on March 7, 2007 at 4:49 am

@ mind rebel

Hitler was a Catholic till the day he died, and most real historians agree.

no true scotsman http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#scots

which is written by a fellow atheist, so you know it won't be tainted by memes like most "history" books.

The fact that the author is an atheist is no guarantee of the truth of the book's claims, or that it isn't biased by a hidden agenda. Also i think you're misusing the term 'meme' when you say 'tainted by memes':

[Dawkins] Examples of memes are tunes, catch-phrases, beliefs, clothes fashions, ways of making pots or of building arches.

It seems that any book consists of only memes.

a unit of cultural information transferable from one mind to another.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme

142. Atheist Apostle

Comment #24330 by bitbutter on March 6, 2007 at 3:17 am

@kimpatsu
page 157 in my copy (chapter 5)

It seems true enough to say that the men and women on death row either have bad genes, bad parents, bad ideas, or bad luck. Which of these quantities are they responsible for?

143. The Dawkins Confusion: Naturalism ad absurdum

Comment #23578 by bitbutter on March 1, 2007 at 3:10 pm

Extreme populations interact with extremely small probabilities, such as the situation in which people try to guess the lottery numbers. After a time, someone (but not you) does guess the numbers. If you use the religious argument dismissing the anthropic principle, you have to conclude that each lottery winner was given the numbers because the chance of hitting by "random" is too "fined tuned." You won't hit the lottery, but someone will, and from the view of that someone, it's a miracle.

thanks quine: this is a useful 'down to earth' illustration of the mistake. I'll be using this lottery analogy.

144. The Dawkins Confusion: Naturalism ad absurdum

Comment #23556 by bitbutter on March 1, 2007 at 2:20 pm

Well, of course our universe would have to be fine-tuned, given that we live in it. But how does that so much as begin to explain why it is that [our universe] is fine-tuned?

[slaps forehead] Although he's certainly aware of it, this passage demonstrates a failure to come to grips with the anthropic principle; which is a shame because it's a beauty.

145. The Dawkins Confusion: Naturalism ad absurdum

Comment #23550 by bitbutter on March 1, 2007 at 2:09 pm

According to his definition (set out in The Blind Watchmaker), something is complex if it has parts that are "arranged in a way that is unlikely to have arisen by chance alone." But of course God is a spirit, not a material object at all, and hence has no parts.

Roll's sentiment seconded, i could hardly believe my eyes. this is a classic!

Explanations come to an end; for theism they come to an end in God.

.. and for those of us with less of a horror of uncertainty they come to an end in 'I don't know'.

146. Dawkins v. Collins Debate

Comment #23353 by bitbutter on February 28, 2007 at 4:40 am

@ mindrebel: as i (mis?)understand it; memes are necessary, inevitable and not the problem here (some memes will be more representative of the truth than others). As Dennet points out, words are memes too.

Dogmatic faith is what should be thrown out.

(edited to remove quote marks from around 'the truth' ;) )

147. Faith

Comment #23107 by bitbutter on February 26, 2007 at 11:38 am

nrvous:

Mouthalmighty: A hearty round of applause for your post #67 -- a neat and damning identification of a tendency I have often noted in theists but have never been able to articulate myself.

seconded!

148. Faith

Comment #23040 by bitbutter on February 26, 2007 at 2:50 am

Julia Neuberger

What I find really distasteful is not just the tone of their rhetoric, but their lack of doubt

'distasteful' lol!

There _is_ doubt expressed in TGD about the question of the non-existence of gods. Just the right amount of doubt: a vanishingly small amount. The same amount reserved for question of the existence of Thor, the pink unicorn etc.

No scientific method says that there is no doubt. If you don't accept there's doubt in all things, you're being intellectually dishonest.

yes; and if you pretend that the existence of a currently fashionable god is more likely than the existence of Thor or the pink unicorn you're also being intellectually dishonest.

149. Memo: Stop teaching evolution

Comment #22499 by bitbutter on February 19, 2007 at 11:40 am

gimlibengloin:

What he seems to be opposing is the stance that people like Dr Dawkins take which even other Darwinists find embarrasing. We see this in the God Delusion where Dawkins is quite adament about the folly of believing in a God we can't see, touch, or feel but is quite willing to state his belief in extraterrestrial civilisations.

There are no reasons to suppose there might be a god. There are good reasons to suppose there might be alien life.

150. Debate between Sam Harris and Reza Aslan

Comment #22010 by bitbutter on February 12, 2007 at 9:42 am

Again harris' is accused of overlooking the 'Shimmering ocean of nuance' and complexity of religion. The format of the debate was quite skewed against his favour, tag teamed! I was impressed by his cool headedness.

The 'Religions' being discussed by the speakers are (at least) two very different things. My conception of religion is the one harris is talking to. Simply put, institutionalised supernatural thinking. Reza seems to talking about Religion more as a living language or cultural record. But he never 'put his hand on the table' in a satisfactory way so its hard to tell.

On the one hand Reza says that people who believe in the literal truth of holy texts should rightly be ridiculed. But if we read holy texts as mere metaphors then they offer us no reason to 'believe' or be religious. On the other hand he seems to want to preserve respect for religious thinking. As i understand it it's not possible to be a (for example) Christian without believing at least some of the wild truth claims made in the bible, that Jesus is the son of god, for instance. Does Reza think this a claim that isn't deserving of ridicule?

I'm left puzzled by what his stance is. The conception of religion he seems to put forward reminds me of the "flabbily elastic definition" that Dawkins identifies. A nice safe position to take. You can't nail down jelly.