101. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #151003 by SteveN on March 28, 2008 at 1:53 am

Richard Morgan wrote:

Next time I suffer from insomnia, I'll clean out the "it seems to me" from A.McGrath's presentation, which will probably reduce it by about a third!

If you take out all instances of "...and this is a very important question", you can probably save another third.

This reminds me of an event in one of Asimov's Foundation novels in which a highly complex but admired document (I think it was a treaty or something similar) was subjected to a mathematical or logical process to remove the waffle and contradictions from the important parts. The remaining content was precisely zero.

102. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #150991 by SteveN on March 28, 2008 at 12:13 am

Greyman wrote in post #207:

Uhm, SteveN, the question actually was "is belief in God a dangerous delusion?". It was a debate about the utility of religion, not about its truth. Although this point didn't seem answer that either, as far as I can tell.

Well, I seem to remember McGrath saying at the start of his opening statement something like "There are two questions to be addressed here: "is God a delusion?" and "is belief in God dangerous"" and it was in answer to the first question that he made the remarks I paraphrased earlier.

OK. I've now gone back and listened again to the beginning of the statement, (and I will never forgive you for making me do that, Greyman, ;-)), and I find that my memory was not letting me down. It's at 27:15.

103. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #149601 by SteveN on March 26, 2008 at 1:41 am

Since our rapid-fire and somewhat off-topic discussion (mea culpa!) concerning intellectual dishonesty was resolved so satisfactorily, I actually found the time to listen to the debate. For the umpteenth time, I had the urge to shout at McGrath "Address the point! Enough of the woolliness, already!" Apart from his extremely irritating rhetorical style ("it seems to me", "this is an extremely important question" etc) he categorically fails to answer the questions that he poses himself. He said in his opening that he would address the question of whether God is a delusion and then provides no evidence whatsoever. His argument was simply (paraphrasing) "unlike 2 plus 2 equals 4, we can't prove most of the important beliefs in our lives, such as democracy is better than facism". How on Earth does that even begin to address the question of God's existence?

Another point. I can now understand why he switched from science to theology early in his career. He would probably would have made an awful scientist. Although many of my team are religious, I wouldn't employ someone with his profound lack of objectivity in the lab as a technician, let alone as an independent researcher.

104. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #149384 by SteveN on March 25, 2008 at 2:27 pm

bonzai wrote:

...steve and steveN here are trying to argue that there is some merit in being a fundamentalist,--"intellectual honesty" which means an absence of intellect, as it turns out.

NOOOOOOO! That's like saying that I believe there is some merit in being a Nazi because they had snazzy uniforms. With the sole exception of the intellectual honesty bit, I have a massively higher regard for moderate theists than I have for fundies. Like I said earlier, some of my scientific colleagues whom I respect very highly, are also religious.

Edit: I'm off to bed now. I hope there's not a million posts to read when I get up ;-)

105. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #149369 by SteveN on March 25, 2008 at 2:16 pm

Bonzai,

Part of our going round in circles has been due to speed of this thread. I haven't been able to keep up to date in some cases. I think that we can agree (have agreed?) that intellectual dishonesty requires some intellectual involvement. In this regard, the ignorant and deluded fundie (through no fault of his/her own) is not dishonest. I also agree wholeheartedly with Riley that the charlatans at AIG and the DI are orders of magnitude more dishonest than the moderate theist.

Concerning your question...

So how am I dishonest if I knowingly interpret the bible because I genuinely believe that the Bible is meant to be understood in its proper context and that revelation is ongoing which speaks to our time?

...it is, in my opinion, the methods you use to interpret the bible that reflect on your degree of intellectual honesty. If you have a genuinely objective method of interpreting the text to reveal the intention of the author (story or fact), something perhaps that a computer could be programmed to do, then that would be fine. Such a system would retrospectively reveal everything in Genesis etc to be intended fiction and perhaps a certain battle as intended historical fact. Until now, I am unaware of such analytical systems and decisions seem to be made by a bunch of guys arguing over some minor point or turn of phrase. Your statement "that revelation is ongoing which speaks to our time" seems to indicate that you believe the texts should be interpreted to match what is currently known. If so, I'm sorry, but that does seem to be intellectually dishonest to me. The authors of the OT had certain intentions and beliefs when they wrote the passages and it is not appropriate to retrospectively change these perceived intentions. I personally think that it is highly probable that the authors believed every word to be factually correct and until relatively recently this has been the view of virtually everyone.

106. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #149345 by SteveN on March 25, 2008 at 1:43 pm

Bonzai wrote:

So "intellectual honesty" honesty" to you basically mean the absence of intellect or reflection, Strange definition but in that case I agree 100% than fundies are more intellectual honest. It is not a compliment.

Yahoo! We have reached an agreement! I, in turn, in my post #103 agreed that:

If a fundamentalist were to be fully aware of the data and be educated enough to understand the reliability and strength of the data but were to still ignore it in preference for the bible, then I agree that such a person would be even more dishonest.

I guess that if we had, from the outset, restricted 'intellectual dishonesty' to those who actually thought about and were knowledgeable about all aspects of the topic, we could have saved ourselves a lot of misunderstanding.

107. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #149335 by SteveN on March 25, 2008 at 1:35 pm

Bonzai asked:

Then so do the fundies who pray to the "Holy Spirit" to guide them cherry pick and they have no system at all. You think that is more honest?

Yes, because they are not knowingly doing the cherry-picking. As Steve Zara said (and what really sums up the whole point I was trying to make) "You can be honest, but also stupid, ignorant and wrong." People like McGrath do not have the excuse of stupidity and ignorance

108. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #149331 by SteveN on March 25, 2008 at 1:26 pm

Bonzai wrote in post #113:

Theologians may not think that they are "cherry picking", they have systems and debates, The fundies cherry pick, but arbitrarily.

Indeed, theologians may not think that they are cherry-picking, and they may have big conferences and debates to decide what to accept as fact and what next to label as 'intended metaphor' but in the absence of evidence, all they're doing is cherry-picking.

109. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #149323 by SteveN on March 25, 2008 at 1:13 pm

Bonzai wrote in post 103:

Fundies don't cherry pick? Do you honestly think even fundies believe in a flat earth?

Well, the references in Genesis to the 'Circle of the Earth' is vague enough that even the most ardent fundamentalist can safely interpret that to mean 'sphere'.

It is not like if you can accept one premise without evidence, namely that God exists, therefore anything goes. This is a point that the "rational crusaders" on this site often miss.

I would be surprised if many, if any, of the contributors here think that those who believe in God will automatically believe in anything. Many of my scientific colleagues for whom I have the greatest respect are also theists. Needless to say, I think that they are intellectually dishonest when it comes to their faith, but I don't expect them to believe in fairies or astrology any more than I do.

110. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #149314 by SteveN on March 25, 2008 at 12:57 pm

Riley, I posted my comment #100 before seeing your post #98.

You said:

There is so much controversy because there is so little evidence.

Well, in the absence of evidence, the honest thing to do is to provisionally assume it's all myth until such time that supporting evidence becomes available

Yes it's intellectually dishonest to claim certain knowledge about something for which you have so little evidence. But isn't the degree of certainty with which a faith claim is held, the very thing that differentiates the "moderate" from the "fundamentalist"? If certainty is the measure of intellectually dishonesty, then by definition the "fundamentalists" are more intellectually dishonest!

As I stated in my post #100, it is the methodology of the moderates that I find intellectually dishonest. People like McGrath knowingly pervert the normal protocols of intellectual pursuit to shoe-horn the bible into their world-view. If a fundamentalist were to be fully aware of the data and be educated enough to understand the reliability and strength of the data but were to still ignore it in preference for the bible, then I agree that such a person would be even more dishonest. The 'intellectually honest' fundie I was referring to in my initial post was the home-schooled kind who honestly believes the bible to be a factual, historical document written by, or inspired by, God and who has been lied to sufficiently to reject what little knowledge he or she has of science. Such people are, in my opinion, ignorant and deluded but not intellectually dishonest in the way that cherry-picking moderates are.

111. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #149309 by SteveN on March 25, 2008 at 12:42 pm

Riley wrote in post 95

So on the one hand you have "moderates" who acknowledge that there is a continuing struggle to figure out exactly what it is that God wants. They acknowledge that they've been wrong before and they are continually willing to change their model of the world as new evidence presents itself.

Of course, from an objective and external viewpoint, the moderate who accepts the scientific findings concerning evolution, the age of the Earth, the flood etc is more honest than the fundie who rejects the evidence. My point, right from the beginning, is that the fundie thinks his evidence is stronger and doesn't commit the intellectually dishonest sin of cherry picking the data to fit the theory. If the moderates you refer to were to only accept the parts of the bible for which there was evidence, then there would be very little left in which to believe, including the belief in God. What happens in reality is that moderates start with the bible, label all scientifically disproven parts retrospectively as 'intended metaphor', hand-wave away the sickening, viscious parts to maintain the 'Good Book' image and then quibble ad nauseum about the meaning of the rest.

112. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #149299 by SteveN on March 25, 2008 at 12:12 pm

To Bonzai and Riley

I seem to be having real problems getting my point across here. I am NOT suggesting that it is only intellectually honest to wholly accept or wholly reject a particular piece of text. As I tried to make clear with my Henry V and Odessey analogies, there may be snippets of historical truths in the bible, but the only way to determine this is with independent evidence, be it historical or archaelogical. The intellectual dishonesty comes with the methods used to label something metaphor and something else fact: it is almost invariably based on negation by science or on personal preference. Bonzai claims that there are objective methods used to analyse the text in order to determine the intent of the authors (i.e. story or historical record) but if that is so, why is there still so much controversy. I asked for a referencee to a guide explaining what sophisticated believers accept as myth and what is considered to be fact, but this has not been provided. All I can find are modern versions of 'how many angels can dance on a pin?'

113. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #149244 by SteveN on March 25, 2008 at 10:08 am

Bonzai said in post 71:

But except for the fundies, Christians are not claiming, and are not obliged to claim that every bit of the bible is factually accurate.

You seem to be missing again the point I'm trying so hard to make. Whether or not parts of the bible are factual or not is irrelevant. It is the method by which parts are condemned to be allergory/metaphor and others to be factual based on nothing more than personal opinion that is intellectually dishonest. Until relatively recently, the Adam and Eve story, the Flood etc. were considered by most people in Europe to be factually true. Very few (if any) of the 16th Century theologians suggested that Genesis was 'just a metaphor'. Now that science has shown this to be nonsense, it is dishonest to say "of course, Genesis was never intended to be taken literally - how silly of you to think that"

You probably have the same problem with Homer, Lao Tze and any ancient texts for that matter. Even if you adhere to rigorous scholarship there will be differences in interpretations and opinions, It doesn't mean the scholarship is arbitrary though.

If the sholarship involves comparing the texts with other contempory accounts and with archaeological findings, then I have no problems, of course. However, if I claim that the although much of the Odyssey is metaphorical, Odysseus really did fight a cyclops and that Zeus really exists based on no evidence whatsoever, then I am being intellectually dishonest.

114. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #149229 by SteveN on March 25, 2008 at 9:38 am

Bonzai asked in post 45:

Would you say it is "intellectually more honest" to read Shakespeare simply on face value while ignoring all allusions, metaphors and historical context?

Of course not, but I'm not claiming Shakespeare to be factually accurate. This actually makes for a good metaphor. If I had been brought up in a society that accepted 'Henry V' to be an accurate description of events, I would be intellectually honest to believe it. I would also be intellectually honest if I had been brought up to consider the play to be a work of fiction loosely based on real, independently verifiable events (e.g. the Battle of Agincourt). I would, however, be intellectually dishonest if I were to consider the parts that have been shown to be fiction as allergory but accept other parts (e.g. the text of the 'Eve of Saint Crispin's Day' speech) to be factually accurate based on nothing more than my personal worldview.

Some have sophisticated systems to do the picking and choosing, it is called exegesis. It is not arbitrary.

If it's not arbitrary, why are no two opinions the same? If you are aware of a widely accepted, authoritative guide to what is fact and what is fiction in the bible (and more importantly the basis for these distinctions), then I would be grateful for the source. All I can find is personal opinion and selective cherry-picking wrapped up in clever names.

115. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #149166 by SteveN on March 25, 2008 at 8:09 am

Bonzai asked:

How does ignorance get equated with honesty?

To give you a (perhaps not totally) hypothetical example, if a creationist has been told since birth that the bible is the true, literal word of God, that the universe is 6000 years old and that scientific evidence (fossils, radiodating etc) to the contrary is flawed or falsified, he or she is being honest (as far as he or she is concerned) when arguing this point. A sophisticated believer who dismisses the Garden of Eden, the Flood, the Exodus etc as mere stories because they are clearly contradicted by evidence but believes in a creator who guided evolution, answers prayers, creates souls etc is being intellectually dishonest because he or she has cherry-picked the data to fit his or her personal (probably unique) world-view.

116. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #149159 by SteveN on March 25, 2008 at 7:50 am

Bonzai,

I have just read your post that came up seven minutes after mine. It seems to me that you believe that I was suggesting that the only true and consistent belief is a fundamentalist, literal one. This was not my intention. My only point is that the fundamentalist belief is, as far as the fundie is concerned, intellectually honest. The sophisticated believer has to jump through hoops to fit the bible into a modern world-view and this, in my opinion, is intellectually dishonest. One should decide which parts of the bible are historically or literally true (if any) based on evidence, not personal feelings.

Those who claim that the bible is a handbook for morality and ethics are being equally dishonest. Sure, there are good and noble sections giving good advice, but there are also horrendous, viscious sections that would be used only by a psychopath as a moral guide. Picking the good bits and ignoring the bad bits is simply dishonest.

117. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #149148 by SteveN on March 25, 2008 at 7:28 am

Bonzai, by his own admission, ranted:

You may have more sympathy for the fundamentalists because you share their shallow, "born again" mindsets, only different "religion".

I don't have sympathy for the fundies - quite the opposite. I was pointing out that if they believe the bible to be the highest order of evidence (which is clearly insane) then the conclusions they draw are, as far as they are concerned, perfectly consistent and logical. They are at least (in their minds) not selecting the bits of the bible that fit their views. Nice combination of 'ad hominem' and 'atheism is just a religion' by the way.

I am sick of idiotic atheists who insist that the only consistent believer is the fundamentalist. Their fucking book is not consistent internally if you take the naive, literalist approach and it needs to be interpreted, it has always been the case and that's what theology is about, at least a large part of it.There is no scriptural basis to say that "God" is an literalist even for the believers.

Well, this idiotic atheist is unaware of the clear guidelines in the bible that indicate which parts are allegorical and which parts are literally true. If this is obvious to your vastly superior intellect, perhaps you would be so kind as to let us know.

Even if you disagree with something you don't set up a strawman and then shoot it down to declare victory.

What strawman? I merely stated that, in my opinion, people who pick and choose what to believe to be true based on nothing more than their own world-view are being intellectually dishonest. If a student or post-doc in my lab selected data that fitted their hypothesis but ignored data that contradicted it, I would similarly accuse him or her of intellectual dishonesty.

If you want to criticize religion at least try to understand it first.

So, as I know next to nothing about astrology, I am not allowed to criticise it. I suppose the same applies to ghosts, UFOs, crystal healing, scientology, and any number of world views and religions based on delusions.

In the end, if you pick and choose without evidence the bits that you personally accept as fact and those that you consider to be just a story, you're left with nothing more than 'shit you made up.'

118. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #149037 by SteveN on March 25, 2008 at 2:53 am

tacitus wrote in post #7:

[McGrath] is the product of the type of Christianity that is thoroughly despised by American fundamentalists (perhaps as much as atheists are despised) in that they are very selective about what they take from the Bible -- using only the feel-good Jesusy (sic) stuff and relegating the rest to being merely historical background and myth.

I actually agree with the fundamentalists on this point (never thought I'd say that!). I have more 'respect' intellectually speaking for the fundamentalists in this regard. The fundies, highly deluded though they are, at least have what they regard to be evidence for their beliefs; i.e. the bible. That they think this 'evidence' trumps all scientific evidence to the contrary is of course delusion bordering on the insane, but the McGrath method of cherry-picking the bits he wants to believe and hand-waving away the obviously ridiculous parts as myth and allegory is, in my opinion, intellectually bankrupt in the extreme. The fundies have the excuse of indoctriniation and ignorance. McGrath and his kind on the other hand knowingly twist and corrupt the standards of intelluctual pursuit.

119. Writer Arthur C Clarke dies at 90

Comment #146316 by SteveN on March 18, 2008 at 11:58 pm

I also feel a sense of loss at his passing. He was a great infuence on my life because it was reading his books when a young teenager (or even younger), together with those of Asimov, that crystalised my sense of wonder of the universe and my life-long fascination with science.

120. Richard Dawkins on five of his favorite books

Comment #132616 by SteveN on February 25, 2008 at 3:40 am

Quote: GBart

Why can't British people pronounce "controversey" GAWD

Why can't Americans spell "controversy" GAWD

121. Over half of Britons claim no religion

Comment #131331 by SteveN on February 22, 2008 at 9:05 am

Steinsky wrote:

Steve N: I can actually imagine things being the other way around -- people answering "no" to the God question (whether agnostic or atheist) but stating that they are "Christian" because they grew up in a Christian family and went to a CofE school, vaguely remember the parables and nativity, and just don't relate to islam, hinduism, and all the rest of them.

Hmmm. I hadn't though of that. However, if a significant proportion of the 'Christians' are actually atheists, then things are even better than the report implies!

122. Over half of Britons claim no religion

Comment #131269 by SteveN on February 22, 2008 at 6:42 am

Although this is encouraging news indeed I would be interested to know (a) whether this apparent change reflects a growing willingness for non-believers to state their (non)belief when asked by the pollsters (maybe as a result of the efforts of Richard and Co.) and (b) how the questions were 'framed'. I can imagine that many 'on the fencers' would be happy to answer 'no' to the question 'do you adhere to a religion?' but not necessarily to 'do you believe in God?'

Of course, an even more welcome reason would be the recent de-conversion of over 22% of the population, but that's too much to hope for, I think.

123. Why do we believe in God? 2m study prays for answer

Comment #130005 by SteveN on February 19, 2008 at 9:45 pm

Teratornis wrote in post #79:

In any case, let's reflect on how amazingly fortunate we are to receive the occasional mild correction from one of the world's intellectual giants. Imagine Newton correcting your math, or Darwin showing you how to mount a specimen. You'd tell that one to your grandkids.

I'm not real big on hero worship in most cases, after all Prof. Dawkins (I can't quite bring myself to say "Richard" yet) puts his pants on one leg at a time like the rest of us (unlike Chuck Norris, I suppose, who probably leaps into his in one fluid motion at the end of a roundhouse kick), but anyone who is smart enough to find this site interesting probably tends to look up to those at the rarefied heights of intellectual attainment, and Prof. Dawkins is certainly bumping the ceiling. It is an honor to be judged worthy of mild correction from the master. Seriously, I'm not being cynical here.

Thanks Teratornis. As Oscar Wilde might have said "There is only one thing worse than being corrected by Richard Dawkins, and that is not being corrected by Richard Dawkins".

One of the things I really enjoy about this site is the fact that Richard occasionally joins in the discussions. I've been reading and re-reading his books for 25 years, so it's nice to be part of a virtual community in which he takes an active role. However, since seeing me plucking up the courage to approach Richard for a quick chat after a lecture he gave here in Berlin a couple of years ago, my daughter refers to me as a 'Dawkins groupie'.

Cheers

SteveN

124. Why do we believe in God? 2m study prays for answer

Comment #129533 by SteveN on February 19, 2008 at 9:10 am

annabanana wrote:

Without the traditions and ceremonies of particular religions pervading the minds of children, it may be that the belief in a god does NOT vary from region to region.

This is a valid point but I personally doubt that it will turn out to be the case. You are basically suggesting that a certain proportion of the population are genetically programmed to believe in one or more gods regardless of their upbringing (less than 15% if the reported 85% non-believer rate in Sweden is true) and that the rest in countries like the USA are genetically non-believer but are made into believers by their environment. I would bet that if children were to be totally shielded from the very idea of religion until maybe their 18th birthdays, then very few indeed would 'convert'. Although this experiment is impossible to do deliberately, it would be interesting to know how many adopted children of atheist parents become religious, for example. For two million, I'd be happy to find out!

125. Why do we believe in God? 2m study prays for answer

Comment #129487 by SteveN on February 19, 2008 at 7:45 am

Richard wrote:

There is no suggestion that Justin Barrett supports McGrath. Read what it says more carefully:

Justin Barrett, a psychologist who has been quoted in support of arguments by both the atheist Richard Dawkins and his critic, Alister Mc-Grath...

Well, that's really embarrassing! I've always hoped to have a reply by Richard to one of my posts and the first time it happens it's a public slap on the wrist! Thank you, anyway, Richard for correctly pointing out my mistake, though I must admit that I had to read it again three or four times before I realised where I had gone wrong. This is what comes of rushing off a post in the hope of getting in first.

SteveN

126. Why do we believe in God? 2m study prays for answer

Comment #129424 by SteveN on February 19, 2008 at 5:40 am

I would be interested to hear which arguments by McGrath Justin Barrett supports. I have yet to see a viable argument from him.

[Addition in edit]

I would have thought that the fact that there is such a discrepancy in belief between, say Sweden and the USA, or between 18th Century England and modern-day England, that the 'nature or nuture' question has an obvious answer. Why are they throwing money at such a redundant topic?

127. Morality and the 'new atheism'

Comment #119887 by SteveN on February 1, 2008 at 1:04 am

I found the description of mirror neurons firing in the brain of macaques when observing the distress in another to be interesting. It's a pity that the author didn't point out the experiments referred to here http://www.edge.org/documents/archive/edge206.html#NYTwade in which monkeys, if faced with a situation in which by pulling a chain will receive food but will also induce a painful electric shock in another monkey, choose to starve themselves for many days if necessary. This shows, in my mind, a level of empathy and morality not too disimilar from our own and is strong evidence for the evolutionary roots of our own standards of ethics and morality.

128. Sentenced to death: Afghan who dared to read about women's rights

Comment #118837 by SteveN on January 31, 2008 at 3:50 am

It's at times like this that I really wish for a global charter of human rights backed by an independent force able to proactively enforce regulations, arrest rogue politicians and leaders and even 'rescue' people like Sayed Pervez Kambaksh from execution if necessary. Naive, I know, but when even democracy doesn't protect one from such barbarism, something drastic has to be done.

129. Happy Birthday Josh Timonen!

Comment #118830 by SteveN on January 31, 2008 at 3:33 am

Herzlichen Glückwunsch zum Geburtstag, Josh!

To repeat what many others have already said, you're doing a fantastic job with this site. I spend far too much of my spare time here, probably more than all other sites combined. Thank you.

Cheers


SteveN

130. What should a scientist think about religion?

Comment #118748 by SteveN on January 30, 2008 at 11:13 pm

Erik Blair said...

For example, a scientist may, on the one hand, "understand" that human love may be nothing more than a collection of brain-based reactions, but on the other believe/hope that it also has some quality that transcends this explanation. That the bond with his/her lover is greater than that between two mating chimpanzees or dogs.
Similarly with explanations of consciousness itself.
So if we don't have a problem with a scientist having such beliefs/hopes, then why would undogmatic, non-conflicting religious faith be a red flag?

Well, I do have a problem with a scientist who believes love or consiousness itself transcends brain-based reactions because there is no evidence at all that this is the case.

Similarly, comparing human love with mating chimps and dogs is a false analogy. We are social animals that have evolved, like many other species, to (more or less) maintain long-term male/female bonds. Would it be fair to compare the 'noble' life-long bonding of penguins or beavers with the one-night-stand behaviour or serial affairs/marriages of many humans? Who are we to say that love is unique to humans and that penguins do not feel the same for their mates?

131. What should a scientist think about religion?

Comment #118115 by SteveN on January 30, 2008 at 11:09 am

PZ said:

"Of course, that means the commenter's question above is completely backwards. Atheist scientists are consistent, and don't need to announce whether they are speaking as a scientist or an atheist—those two voices are the same. Religious scientists are the ones who have to be careful, because they are the ones who are living with two very different worldviews."

...and I couldn't agree more. I am myself an atheist and a scientist and for me the two go hand-in-hand. Some of my scientific colleagues, for whose work I have the utmost respect, do profess belief in God. This is something that I simply cannot comprehend, this ability to compartmentalise points of view. How one can rigorously demand the highest standards of evidence before accepting a proposition, critically dissecting one's own work and the work of others all day, but not apply these same standards to one's beliefs is beyond me. As much as I enjoy much of Gould's writing I consider his idea of non-overlapping magesteria to be bullshit of the highest order.

132. The devilish church practice of exorcism

Comment #114097 by SteveN on January 21, 2008 at 11:19 am

I felt physically sick reading how that smug, deluded idiot of a priest "told me with pride how he had driven the demons out. They starved Clarice for four days, whipped her and threatened to burn her, until finally she "confessed."

In any other situation he and the parents would be sent to jail, but because it's the church they can boast to the press about the suffering they inflicted on an innocent child and nobody will do a thing about it.

Bloody hell, it makes me sooooo mad!

133. Stop revisionist Christian nation House Resolution 888

Comment #113990 by SteveN on January 21, 2008 at 6:59 am

Sanctioning Torture: Waterboarding isn't torture. ...

I think that the guy here...

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=448717

who tried it on himself would beg to differ.

He says:


So, is it torture?

I'll put it this way. If I had the choice of being waterboarded by a third party or having my fingers smashed one at a time by a sledgehammer, I'd take the fingers, no question.

It's horrible, terrible, inhuman torture. I can hardly imagine worse. I'd prefer permanent damage and disability to experiencing it again. I'd give up anything, say anything, do anything.

The Spanish Inquisition knew this. It was one of their favorite methods.

It's torture. No question. Terrible terrible torture. To experience it and understand it and then do it to another human being is to leave the realm of sanity and humanity forever. No question in my mind.


Cheers


SteveN

134. 2007 Audiobook Download of the Year: The God Delusion

Comment #99519 by SteveN on December 17, 2007 at 1:12 am

Oh Hell!

I've just signed up to Audible.co.uk for the explicit reason of downloading the unabridged version of The God Delusion and now the website gives me the message "ALERT: Audible.co.uk is not authorised to sell this title to your geographic location." (I live in Germany).

Very, very annoying! Be warned all you non-UK residents.


[Edit: I've now downloaded the unabridged "Dune" by Frank Herbert instead, so I don't feel so bad now]

135. Chimps beat humans in memory test

Comment #93730 by SteveN on December 4, 2007 at 3:45 am

Soul_Biscuit wrote in Post #5

The research found that young chimpanzees outperformed human adults. I wonder what would happen if they put young chimpanzees against human children? Perhaps human children have a capacity for photographic memory that declines with age, just as chimpanzees do.

I think there may be some truth in that. I remember that when my children were very young (maybe 5 or 6 years) they would totally, humiliatingly destroy me at the game 'Memory' (the one where you have to turn over pairs of matching cards). I thought then that it must be something about to do with having a young brain. When, in order to test this hypothesis, I rechallenged them as adults to a game we were equally matched. Of course, it's also possible that my memory had improved in the intervening years, but I doubt it.

136. Turkey probes atheist's 'God' book

Comment #91376 by SteveN on November 28, 2007 at 7:30 am

...if the prosecutor concludes that the book "incites religious hatred" and insults religious values.

Right, TGD will convert people to atheism and urge them to carry out acts of violence on the religious. And what 'religious values', may I ask, do not deserve to be insulted?

The sensitivity of the faith-heads to anything that could be interpreted as an insult is really getting tiresome.

137. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #87404 by SteveN on November 12, 2007 at 3:29 am

Goldy wrote:

Bacteria were here before us and they'll be here after us.

Quite true! - unless the Sun goes supernova, of course, in which case we'll all disappear at approximately the same time ;-)

What I find both more inspiring and more humbling is the fact that (as I think RD said) we each are a colony of cells, and each cell is a colony of bacteria. The fact that mitochodria, the 'powerhouse' organelles that keep us alive, are effectively degenerate symbiotic bacteria that retain their own DNA was one of the more gobsmacking things I learned when studying biology.

Cheers


SteveN

138. Allan Gregg interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #87395 by SteveN on November 12, 2007 at 2:58 am

Off-Topic: Does anyone know what's happened to the avatars of some posters here (including mine)? Is this a temporary problem, or do we need to redo our profiles?

139. Excerpt from 'The Portable Atheist'

Comment #87355 by SteveN on November 12, 2007 at 1:02 am

The Hitch wrote:

And who, really, will turn away from George Eliot and James Joyce and Joseph Conrad in order to rescrutinize the bare and narrow and constipated and fearful world of Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, and Osama bin Laden?

Quite brilliant!

140. Allan Gregg interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #87349 by SteveN on November 12, 2007 at 12:32 am

Spinoza wrote:

The answer to "Why are you an atheist?" is not "Because there isn't a God.", the answer ought to be that you were persuaded by good argument (very specific ones) to reject beliefs that have weak or nil justification.

Sorry, Spinoza, but I don't agree. Why would one need good, very specific arguments to reject beliefs with weak or nil justification? At the risk of flogging a dead horse, apply that argument to celestial teapots, flying spaghetti monsters and invisible pink unicorns. It is not necessary to be an intellectual giant steeped in philosophy and science in order to reject the ridiculous. Of course, if you want to argue with (so-called) intellectual theists, such knowledge might be useful, but for your average, run-of-the-mill atheist, the 'weak or nil justification' of belief is quite sufficient.

Cheers


SteveN

141. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86770 by SteveN on November 10, 2007 at 5:53 am

ADH wrote:

I did not say that chemical reactions within the brain CANNOT be of internal origin. What I said, and the examples I gave bear out my point, was that we CANNOT RULE OUT an external cause a priori.

Of course nobody can rule out an external influence (by which you imply God, of course). Similarly, we cannot rule out that these thoughts and feelings are being beamed into your head by intelligent sponges from Venus. You cannot rule out that the entire universe, including you and your memories, were created last week by an extra-dimensional supercomputer. In the absence of evidence, however, the most reasonable stance is to reject such hypotheses until convincing evidence is provided.

Cheers,


SteveN

142. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86686 by SteveN on November 10, 2007 at 12:52 am

ADH wrote:

I accept it on authority - yes, the authority of Scripture. Before you tear me to bits for saying that, let me ask you a question. Is there not a great deal that you accept on authority rther than because you have tangible evidence for it?

Here, you are making the very common mistake of equating religious authority with scientific 'authority'. Actually, there is no such thing as 'authority' in science. There is just the tentative acceptance of a conclusion when all the data support it (so far). No one person can know all the data and results needed to arrive at all scientific conclusions. I am myself a scientist, but being a biologist, know next to nothing about physics, for example. However, knowing how science works, with its continuous questioning, testing and verification, I am happy to accept from 'authority' the conclusions based on centuries of careful experimentation. It is the robustness of the theory to withstand attacks from all sides that gives it its 'authority', not one person's views or writings, regardless of how famous, successful or admired he or she may be. However, should contradictory data be found, or an alternative theory developed that better explains the current data, then the 'authorative' theory would be dropped like a hot potato.

Religious authority is based on nothing of substance. You have no more reason to accept the bible as a source of 'truth' than you have any other ancient text. Sure, there may be a few historical facts mixed in with the nonsense, in much the same way as there may be with the legends of King Arthur and Robin Hood. However, calling an ancient, self-contradictory collection of myths and legends (most of which are refuted by hard evidence) an 'authority' is a blatant misuse of the term.

Cheers



Steve

143. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86453 by SteveN on November 9, 2007 at 9:10 am

Steve99 wrote:

Even if you assume that souls exist, surely we should value animals according to the 'amount' of soul they have.

I think you're missing the point. ADH thinks that only humans have souls. That's precisely why our 'value' is so much higher than that of a chimp, for example. Sickening, isn't it?

144. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86431 by SteveN on November 9, 2007 at 7:59 am

ADH, as you seem fond of using hypothetical situations to probe questions of morality, I have one for you:

Let us assume for a moment that I have a killer bit of evidence that will absolutely, 100% convince you that God does not exist. If I show it to you, you will instantly become an atheist but will carry on living a normal, happy, fulfilled life, as many of us here do. If you refuse to see the evidence, however, you will never be allowed to see your children again. What would you choose: faith or children?

Just a silly 'what if?' game, I know, but I'm interested to know your response. I'd like to get some idea of just how precious you consider your faith to be to you.

Cheers,


SteveN

145. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86428 by SteveN on November 9, 2007 at 7:43 am

It is where God is not. The utter and eternal absence of God.

I thought God was omnipresent.

Ha, nice catch, Steve99.

God is omnipresent (apart from the places he doesn't go)
God is omniscient (apart from the things he doesn't know)
God is omnipotent (apart from the things he can't do)
God is benevolent (apart from the evil things he does)

146. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86404 by SteveN on November 9, 2007 at 6:33 am

In response to coretemprising (#200), I am personally interested in understanding how an intelligent and coherent person can not only believe things for which there is no evidence, but also manages to reconcile the glaring internal logical, moral and ethical contradictions in their faith. I am also one who believes that ridiculous ideas deserve only to be ridiculed, and I certainly find ADH's beliefs ridiculous. However, he has, for the most part, been willing to argue his point in a friendly and polite manner and there is at least some hope that the discussion will prompt him to examine his own beliefs a bit more critically. More importantly, there are probably many interested, fence-sitting lurkers who will find such an exchange of views to be striking a chord. Finally, through such discussions, my own understanding of the 'other side' is improved considerably. I therefore welcome the participation of people like ADH in this forum.

Cheers


Steve

147. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86392 by SteveN on November 9, 2007 at 6:09 am

ADH wrote:

Steve, when I said it was a metaphor I did not mean to gild the lilly. I don't mean that that makes it any better than if it were real fire. If you access the link I provided to what Peter Kreeft has written on the subject you will get some idea of what I mean. Fire is a metaphor for destruction: the destruction of our humanity.

My point is that there is no reason whatsoever, apart from your own personal wishes, to doubt that the passages in the bible are meant to be read literally and are referring to real, actual, fire in which people are meant to suffer in physical, agonising pain for eternity. This has been, and continues to be, Christian dogma for centuries. Can you not see that you are simply 'making stuff up' when you say things like 'Fire is a metaphor for destruction: the destruction of our humanity'. Don't you feel just a little uncomfortable 'spinning' the unequivocal words of Jesus to fit your own personal agenda?

Keep taking the aspirin!


SteveN

148. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86371 by SteveN on November 9, 2007 at 5:08 am

To ADH..

Sorry to carry on about hell after you asked to drop the subject, but I have two small additional points:

You wrote (in #163) "God would rescue from Hell anyone who called on his name, but those who die having rejected God all their lives will be no more inclined to accept his mercy after death than before." Well, I can assure you that if, after my death, I find myself to my profound shock to be sitting in a lake of fire, I will most certainly be asking God to rescue me. Who the hell (sorry) wouldn't? We atheists reject the concept of God because there simply is no evidence to suggest the existence of deities. Finding myself in hell would quite enough evidence, I can assure you.

Second, you say that all the talk of fire and brimstone is just a metaphor for the separation from God. Now, as pointed out by walk in #99, the bible is quite clear about this:

In Matthew 13:42, Jesus says: "And shall cast them into a FURNACE OF FIRE: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

"In Matthew 25:41, Jesus says: "Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting FIRE,. . ."

Revelation 20:15 says, " And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the LAKE OF FIRE."

There is no way you can honestly claim that these passages are just a metaphor for 'separation from God'. I think that theologens over the last 2000 years or the present pope (that nice man who recently reminded all his flock that hell is a real place of suffering for those who 'sin') might have spotted that one. Your rationalisation is a typical but extreme example of 'it can't be true because I don't want it to be true'. Basically, you're inventing a new bible to fit your own personal wishes. I personally choose to interpret 'FURNACE OF FIRE' to mean 'a nice pub with free beer and good food, but no jukebox'. Hey, that's actually a good name for a pub! Maybe I'm right and that's why nobody asks God to be rescued from hell.

Cheers


SteveN

149. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86303 by SteveN on November 9, 2007 at 12:36 am

Well, ADH, I'm glad to see you return to normality. You do seem to have the wrong idea about atheism, though. You say "Does atheism not require you to assign equal value to every species?". Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a supernatural entity, nothing more. I personally acknowledge that humans are at the top of the ladder when it comes to powers of reasoning and discourse (from which stems the technology that we now enjoy) but that only gives us a higher 'value' to ourselves. A dolphin might consider us rather useless creatures, with our pathetic flounderings in the sea and inability to echolocate.

Now, atheists do not believe, as you do, in the 'soul' as an actual entity separate from the body. We might use it to conveniently describe the 'sum total of all our thoughts, memories and feelings' but nothing else. We tend to find the theist's "we are unique because we have a God-given soul" attitude both arrogant and foolish. Remember, there is absolutely no evidence for the existence of a soul, and modern neuroscience is getting ever closer to understanding the feeling of 'self'.

As I stated in a previous post, being human, I will find more 'value' (whatever that means) in a human life compared to that of a turkey, for example. I'm sure a turkey would not agree. You seem to think that the 'worth' of a human is based entirely on the possession of a soul, and that atheists therefore see no more worth in a human life than that of a bacterium. This is nonsense, of course.

Now, I have tried to help you understand as clearly as possible how I see things. There are many here who are genuinely interested in understanding your point of view. How about reciprocating by answering the simple questions you have been asked. The longer you delay, the more it looks as though you don't yourself understand what you believe, I'm afraid.


Get well sooon,


SteveN

150. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86286 by SteveN on November 8, 2007 at 11:48 pm

Good grief, ADH! That was a bit of an outburst. How you managed to combine so many straw-men and so much sarcasm and cynicism in one post is astonishing. It's a shame that you decided to waste your energies on that rather ridiculous bit of raving instead of answering the simple questions that you have been repeatedly asked in this thread. I can only hope that you are in the grip of a nasty flu-induced fever that has temporarily addled your brain. If not, then I'm afraid you've made yourself look rather evasive, dishonest and not a little foolish. What a pity.

SteveN