Comments by steve99

Comment #43651 by steve99 on May 22, 2007 at 7:32 am

phasmagigas:

I am sorry, but you can't use anything from the Daily Mail as evidence of bias against the BBC. The Daily Mail is nothing but a foaming-at-the-mouth right-wing propoganda sheet. Well written, and well presented, but hardly a source of independent judgement.

The BBC may be occasionally spineless, but it is evenly spineless! People here have written about Paxman and others attacking interviewees, but they do that to everyone. Paxman has attacked lefties just as much as righties (a post-election row with George Galloway was a good example).

1802. Hitchens on Falwell, Part 2

Comment #43628 by steve99 on May 22, 2007 at 6:32 am

The BBC biased? You have to be kidding. The BBC World Service is one of the most trusted and respected broadcasting services in the world. Exactly which social agendas do you think the BBC is pushing? I would be interested to know.

1803. Christopher Hitchens Is a Treasure

Comment #43244 by steve99 on May 21, 2007 at 2:26 am

Reason might well have shown us — did, in fact, show us — that there is a living intelligence deep down in everything on earth and in the skies above.

No, that was ignorance not reason. It only seemed so before we understood that complexity can arise spontaneously.

1804. Goodness without Godliness

Comment #43092 by steve99 on May 20, 2007 at 1:58 pm

Humans do not have the same sort of reproduction hierarchy that many other animal species do, i.e. where only Alpha males and females reproduce, etc.

Homosexuality is present in animals that have a wide range of reproductive hierarchies.

1805. The Cyclic Universe: A Talk With Neil Turok

Comment #43068 by steve99 on May 20, 2007 at 12:28 pm

I am afraid you have just passed the level at which I can competently comment! My vague understanding was that inflation was a natural consequence of many theories of forces, and what we think of as the big bang was in reality what happened when inflation stopped.
Do you have any good references to what you are talking about?

1806. Goodness without Godliness

Comment #43064 by steve99 on May 20, 2007 at 12:18 pm

SRWB: No - there are plenty of examples in Nature of groups where only a selected few in a group reproduce.

1807. Goodness without Godliness

Comment #43060 by steve99 on May 20, 2007 at 11:52 am

Clearly, homosexuality would not have been helpful in maintaining the size of the clan/tribe.

I am not sure that works as a theory, and there are plenty of examples in Nature of homosexuality in animals that live in small groups - apes, elephants etc.

1808. Goodness without Godliness

Comment #43059 by steve99 on May 20, 2007 at 11:50 am

Buddhism.

What we do in this life determines what happens to us in our next life

Some Buddhists believe that, some don't.

Just because Budhhist monks don't go round killing people doesn't say anything about the rights or wrongs of their religion.And it is a religion with Articles of faith like the rest.

No, it isn't. I am afraid even Sam Harris is generalising in the above quoted articles.

There are many traditions of Buddhism, and in some traditions people believe some very strange things. But that does not change the fact that in other traditions of Buddhism people don't believe in any Gods, superstitions or articles of faith at all. No survival of the self after death, no virgin birth of the Buddha, no births from lotuses.

It is entirely possible to be a Buddhist and be fully rational and without the requirement for any faith or superstition.

1809. The Cyclic Universe: A Talk With Neil Turok

Comment #43033 by steve99 on May 20, 2007 at 10:03 am

Stenger is wrong due to the reasons that you gave, not because it's a consensus, which means nothing to science unless the majority are correct.

I know, but the only honest thing for a non-scientist (or a non-expert in that area) to do is to go for the majority view.

Otherwise you get travesties of science like ID-ers picking Behe's work, or global warming deniers picking the work of the few 'outlier' scientists who are still skeptics.

As for the singularity... well, almost everyone thinks that that is just a mathematical fiction, and something odd happens to gravity at the plank length.

1810. The Cyclic Universe: A Talk With Neil Turok

Comment #42994 by steve99 on May 20, 2007 at 8:48 am

I think you are misunderstanding what I am saying. I am actually very keen on the ideas of Woit and Smolin.

I am not that keen on the idea of a multiverse theory where all possible laws of physics occur as an explanation for our universe. It explains nothing, but it is at least something feasible, and to some extent possibly philosophically more reasonable than a single isolated universe.

The thing is that very reasonable physicists think this is the way things are (and not just string theorists trying to defend their 10^500 universes of the string landscape). There could be a multiverse simply as a result of the nature of inflation, nothing to do with String Theory (which I assume is one of your objections).

As for the Stenger issue, I can't really speak for others, but my impression is that some people are desperate to believe what he says because that supposedly backs up their views and gives them more ammunition against the creationists. That he supposedly 'solves' the fine-tuning issue is part of that.

I think that is intellectually weak - it is cherry-picking. I think the only intellectually honest approach if you aren't an expert in a field of science is to accept the consensus. And the consensus is that Stenger is wrong.

1811. The Cyclic Universe: A Talk With Neil Turok

Comment #42919 by steve99 on May 20, 2007 at 5:39 am

What? You think I made it up? I'm amazed that arseholes exist who assume that just because they didn't know something then it must be wrong. Are you one of those? I take that as an insult, you're lucky we're not in the same room!

Oh for goodness sake. I worded what I said carefully. Of course I did not claim or think you made it up. I just thought you may have been mistaken. Calm down. The phrase "you're lucky we're not in the same room" is not something I would have expected to find on a site like this, to be honest.

However, even Dawkins's support (and Dawkins is no physicist) does not make Stenger's comments any less wrong. If there is any way that any life could evolve in a universe with the wrong cosmological constant I would be interested to know about it. Stenger gets other things badly wrong (at least according to most other physicists), for example his assertion that the universe began in a state of very high disorder. This is easily refused by the works of Hawking and Penrose: the initial state of the universe was extremely ordered.

I am not claiming any evidence for a creator. What I am claiming is that Stenger attempt to refute arguments for a creator using arguments that the majority of physicists find distinctly dodgy.

1812. The Cyclic Universe: A Talk With Neil Turok

Comment #42908 by steve99 on May 20, 2007 at 5:05 am

Poor Ryan. He really doesn't get it. Some of us skeptics don't just enjoy bashing religion. We enjoy challenging all ideas. And if that leads to intense debate; well that can be fun. One the great delights of my long-past student days was sitting up all night challenging ideas and having my ideas questioned. Trouble is, you switch such a level of debate into the area of religion and suddenly you are a fanatic...

1813. The Cyclic Universe: A Talk With Neil Turok

Comment #42882 by steve99 on May 20, 2007 at 4:04 am

island1: I am not sure why you are so intense about all this, but I would hardly think that any respectable physicist, even on the cutting edge, would call multiverse-supporters like Sir Martin Rees and Andre Linde 'out of their freaking minds'.

I think a calmer discussion is more appropriate.

1814. The Cyclic Universe: A Talk With Neil Turok

Comment #42860 by steve99 on May 20, 2007 at 2:55 am

Yorker:

Yes, we have had this discussion before :)

Finally, I was pleased to see that Richard Dawkins latched onto Stenger's insight enthusiastically.

I don't think he did. As far as I have heard, Dawkins has never mentioned Stenger's supposed insistence that life turns up in lots of universes. If he has, I would be interested to know.

So sorry Steve, when it comes to reality, I don't think Vic's thinking is poor, I think it's good and simple – the best kind.

But as I explained, it isn't. Stenger says that fine-tuning is largely irrelevant because life can turn up in a large number of universes, no matter what the constants are.

Well, I am afraid the majority of physicists find his reasoning very poor. The consensus is that he has selected the constants he wants to twiddle with and neglected others that are just as important.

And if you look at the fine tuning of just one value - the cosmological constant - the tuning has to be something like 1 in 10^50 to even get a stable universe, let along complexity.

For Stenger's reasoning to be right, you would have to assume that life could appear in the majority of those other 10^50 - 1 universes.

As I said, unless life can exist in universes that are totally empty, or last less than a microsecond (which describes almost all of the possibilities), Stenger is just plain wrong.

We aren't just talking about the majority of universes being inhospitable to life as we know it. We are talking about the majority of universes being hostile to any structure whatsoever.

1815. The Cyclic Universe: A Talk With Neil Turok

Comment #42858 by steve99 on May 20, 2007 at 2:43 am

Yorker:

You are right. What a nasty piece of work. He doesn't seem to understand the difference between criticising an idea and being bigoted against the people who hold it. There is all the difference in the world between criticising Christianity and ranting against Christians; between criticising Judaism and ranting against Jews. I have very good friends who are practicing Christians, and they love a good debate, and manage to defend their idea without feeling persecuted like this immature bigot.

1816. The Cyclic Universe: A Talk With Neil Turok

Comment #42768 by steve99 on May 19, 2007 at 12:56 pm

Yorker:

I think Stenger's explanation is very poor thinking, and isn't really an explanation at all, as there are an almost unimaginable number of universes (at least according to current physics) in which not only would it be difficult for life as we know it to evolve, but in which there would be no complexity of any kind. It is hard to see how life could evolve in universes that existed for only a few microseconds, or in which there was no matter, or which consisted of only black holes and so on. When people talk about fine-tuning, they aren't just talking about fine-tuning in order to get carbon-based life, they are talking about fine-tuning in order to get anything vaguely interesting at all...

1817. The Cyclic Universe: A Talk With Neil Turok

Comment #42723 by steve99 on May 19, 2007 at 7:11 am

windweaver:

I am glad to hear of your attitude. I think the moral of this is to beware of Wikipedia :)

1818. The Cyclic Universe: A Talk With Neil Turok

Comment #42684 by steve99 on May 19, 2007 at 3:53 am

windweaver:

Sorry to sound harsh, but what you have posted makes no sense at all. Just because something has 'holographic' in the title does not mean it has anything at all to do with the Holographic Principle of physics. It is like saying that because Schrodinger mentioned a cat, that Quantum Mechanics can be applied to pet keeping.

Also, the holographic principle does not compete with String (Brane) Theory in any way at all. The holographic principle is nothing to do with cosmology or the origin of the universe - it about the information content of the universe and relates to thermodynamics and black holes.

(roach has it right. There are actually various holographic ideas).

There is something odd about Physics that makes people seem able to think they can be 'armchair physicists', and comment sensibly on it based on the slightest of knowledge.

What you claim for evidence for the 'theory of mind' is no such thing. Anyone with even the slightest knowledge of biology knows that the brain easily has capacity for recall of everything, and there is nothing that autistic people can do that can't be (and isn't being) explained by certain errors in wiring.

Just to give you an idea... the brain has at least 100 billion neurons (and maybe even more cells participate in intelligence, according to recent findings). Say 10,000 connections from each neurone. Even if we assume each connection is related to only one bit that is 10^15 bits. Take a human lifetime of, say, 80 years. That is roughly 1 billion seconds. The brain has enough capacity to store a megabit of information for every second of your life. So where is this need for any other mechanism for total recall?

And we are just talking about storage - the amount of processing power is phenomenal.

It find it really sad when people underestimate biology. This 'theory of mind' is a relevant to an understanding of the brain as Intelligent Design is to evolution.

There is a lot that needs to be explained in terms of mind - qualia and conciousness for example, but let's not wander off into New Age nonsense.

1819. The Cyclic Universe: A Talk With Neil Turok

Comment #42585 by steve99 on May 18, 2007 at 1:34 pm

Am I understanding correctly that our visible universe then is thought to be 2D, but only appears 3D because of the lighting?

Heh. Not quite. All it means is that the universe can be represented as 2D or 3D. It does not state which representation is 'real'.

I find this very intriguing. You would think that the maximum information content of the universe would increase in proportion to volume, but it doesn't. The reason is that if you pack matter and/or energy as tightly as possible you end up with black holes, and (to put it simply) the information content of a black hole is proportional to the surface area of its event horizon, not its volume.

1820. The Cyclic Universe: A Talk With Neil Turok

Comment #42566 by steve99 on May 18, 2007 at 12:21 pm

Fedler:

The article is a bit confusing about this matter.
The imaginary box is nothing whatsoever to do with branes, in fact it need not even be box-shaped.

The representation of the universe on the surface of the 'box' isn't a simplification - it is exactly equivalent to the 3D representation. That is the amazing thing. This is why it is called 'holographic' - in a hologram, all the information about a 3D shape is encoded into a 2D image and can be re-constructed by the appropriate lighting. The holographic theory is that all the information about the universe can in principle be without loss on a 2D surface enclosing the universe (well, the current visible universe).

This sort of transformation is useful in some areas of physics, because problems that are very hard to solve in, say, 3D space, might be a lot easier to solve in 2D space (to put things very simply).

1821. The Cyclic Universe: A Talk With Neil Turok

Comment #42545 by steve99 on May 18, 2007 at 11:21 am

Fedler:

A way to think about this is to imagine each brane as a flat infinite sheet of paper. The branes are like parallel sheets of paper. Each brane is actually 3D, and contains a universe. There is no restriction of the growth of the universe, as each brane is infinite. The 'enclosing box' bit was not well explained. It is an imaginary box used to illustrate (if I understand him right) something called the 'holographic principle', which is that what happens in our universe is equivalent to things happening in 2D space (the surface of the box).

I have to say that personally, I don't think much of this cyclic model. It is the kind of thing you get when you start extrapolating wildly from mathematical models, which is a common tendency in some areas of physics.

1822. The Cyclic Universe: A Talk With Neil Turok

Comment #42526 by steve99 on May 18, 2007 at 10:36 am

Felder: As far as I understand this theory, there are no boundaries to the branes - they are infinite in extent, and the universe expands forever within its brane. What happens is that the universe expands to a point where matter is very, very dilute, then the branes collide again, flooding the effectively empty universe with more matter and energy - effectively a new big bang. This new matter expands out until it is very dilute and so on and on...

1823. The Cyclic Universe: A Talk With Neil Turok

Comment #42507 by steve99 on May 18, 2007 at 10:00 am

Also, as far as I know, the equations of M-theory don't explain the Moral law, which I believe exists, or Jesus, whom I believe is God.

I would be interested to know how much M-theory you know about, and what specific equations you are discussing.

1824. The Cyclic Universe: A Talk With Neil Turok

Comment #42501 by steve99 on May 18, 2007 at 9:54 am

>Mendel, Pastuer, von Neumann, Lemaitre, Lawrence
>Krauss, Kenneth Miller, etc. I'm sticking with
>them.

I'll see your 6 scientists and raise with:

Einstein, Dirac, Freud, Crick, Watson, Leakey, Mayr, Pinker, Feynman, Curie, Shannon, Hawking...

For any list you give, I can double it.

This kind of cherry-picking selectivity is typical of those who don't understand how science works.

1825. The Cyclic Universe: A Talk With Neil Turok

Comment #42493 by steve99 on May 18, 2007 at 9:37 am

>You rerun history in another multiverse and start
>modern science in a culture that worships the sun
>or moon

That is, of course, irrelevant. You specifically mentioned Christianity. I am sure you know full well that the foundations of the rennaissance were laid in Greek and Arab cultures, and the renaissance began in times of religious uncertainty.

Unless, of course, you simply want to define 'Modern Science' as whatever happened in a Christian culture... which is what you are doing. You may wish to note that the most famous scientist of the past century, Einstein, was Jewish (although fundamentally an atheist). In fact, most scientists are atheists. If Christianity was such a benefit to understanding, it is odd that most scientists reject it.

And as for Galileo... It was actually Cardinal Bellarmine who administered the admonition to Galileo not to hold or defend the Copernican theory. You picked the wrong name to defend your case.

1826. The Cyclic Universe: A Talk With Neil Turok

Comment #42481 by steve99 on May 18, 2007 at 9:26 am

crumbledfingers:

I have to agree. Things are getting pretty bad in physics when some string theorists are wondering whether the definition of 'proof' needs to be changed in order to prevent String Theory being abandoned at some point as untestable.

1827. The Cyclic Universe: A Talk With Neil Turok

Comment #42472 by steve99 on May 18, 2007 at 9:14 am

Ryan:

I am completely baffled as to why you think Christianity in any way helps with an understanding of the universe. It certainly hasn't been any help to science. Science has arisen in many cultures. The Chinese developed astronomy, meteorology, chemistry and mathematics. The developed pretty modern science. So did the Greeks. So did the Arabs. Modern science had many 'false starts', but it did not finally get going as a result of religion.

And as for scientists initiating a 'crusade' against religion, you need to get your history straight about this as well. There is a long record of religions attempting to hold back science. Remember how the church persecuted Gallileo? Most religion has always been a threat to science.

1828. Christopher Hitchens to God: Drop Dead

Comment #42088 by steve99 on May 17, 2007 at 3:32 pm

Steelman:

Sorry, but I don't care about "emerging" or "progressive" groups. I have seen those come and go for too long. I have heard promises of moderation that have been broken. I have seen even the most mildest of compromises rejected (even celibate gay people rejected for high office in the ever-so-mild Anglican Church).
I just don't believe them any more. There are, I am sure, many individuals who are decent people and disagree, but in comparison with the mainstream, these people are extremists.

1829. Christopher Hitchens to God: Drop Dead

Comment #42033 by steve99 on May 17, 2007 at 1:43 pm

I am only concerned with our secular political values, and our condemnation of those that seek to take them away. I find myself sympathetic towards those authors and activists that reach out in ways that are also sympathetic towards my cause.

My problem is that I have yet to come across any Abrahamic religious group that, as a whole, reaches out to me. I am gay. I am condemned by Catholics. I am condemned by Muslims. I am even condemned by supposedly moderate versions of those faiths, such as Anglicans. (Although, I have to say, I have no knowledge of Jewish attitudes)

I don't know about you, I find that many who are sympathetic to 'moderate' authors and activists aren't members of minorities that the religions that these people support oppress.

I shall start being sympathetic when they stop considering me sinful and my lifestyle evil. It seems a fair trade.

1830. Christopher Hitchens to God: Drop Dead

Comment #41911 by steve99 on May 17, 2007 at 9:40 am

I would be interested to know what 'moderate' religion is supposed to be. Is it the Catholic church outside of the USA - the vast majority of members - avoiding condoms and suffering diseases and overpopulation? Is it the comfortable old Church of England using its considerable political muscle recently to battle against gay equality laws?

This is a very short-sighted article.

1831. Thought vs. feeling in religion

Comment #41692 by steve99 on May 16, 2007 at 3:31 pm

Lauregon:

Seems to me Carrol did indeed claim that religion explains the mysteries of life.

Well, for a lot of people it does. That is indeed one of the functions of religion. We know it is false explanation, but we should not deny that it has that function.

poppythinks:

atheism for me is a liberation from the constraints of 'religious thinking'.
i am not on a personal mission to change the world, or convert anyone with 'religious delusions'.

But you were responding to my comment about what could replace Liberation Theology, which was about changing the world, at least for those who currently adopt that theology. That was my understanding anyway.

in order to drop the delusions and the warm fuzzy comforting feelings, people need to find comfort in each other. there is nothing else. is that so bad?

I would say there is much more that one can find comfort in than just other people - there are certain philosophies, there are wonders of Nature, there is art, music ....

1832. Unbelievable: That's what religion is, says Christopher Hitchens in his profoundly skeptical manifesto

Comment #41619 by steve99 on May 16, 2007 at 12:00 pm

I apologise if I seem pedantic, but Hitchens is wrong about Buddhism. Over the millenia various schools of Buddhism accumulated all sorts of superstitious baggage, but it just isn't true to generalise with the statement that "The god Buddha was born through an opening in his mother's flank". First, it would be hard to find a Buddhist who would consider the Buddha any kind of God (at least as most religions understand the term), secondly there are many schools of Buddhism who consider the Buddha to be nothing more than a normal man, born normally of normal parents (although he was lucky enough to be born into a rich family).

I understand the point that Hitchens is trying to make, and it is a good one, but the way he makes it is lazy and does not allow for the fact that it is possible to be a Buddhist and be entirely rational and without any belief in superstition or the supernatural.

1833. Thought vs. feeling in religion

Comment #41587 by steve99 on May 16, 2007 at 11:10 am

che:

You are right. I am somewhat disappointed by some of what I have read here. Just one slightly misplaced emphasis by Carroll (a better second sentence would have started with 'Many people think that [It explains the mysteries...]'), and we see reactions like 'I read no further', and a questioning ('why?') his articles are even published.

People here should follow the example of Richard Dawkins who argues with passion and eloquence against faith, but shows respect to many who hold it (as in his recent interview with the Bishop of Oxford).

I agree with most of what you say. However, I have a problem with using religion as a political tool. Actively encouraging adults to believe what you know to be falsehoods for such purposes seems horribly cynical to me (even though it does form the basis of much politics!). There has to be a better approach, surely.

1834. Thought vs. feeling in religion

Comment #41568 by steve99 on May 16, 2007 at 10:07 am

poppythinks:

What is an atheist equivalent to 'Liberation Theology'?
how about liberation from 'theology'?

And how is that going to be achieved? Just walking up to people and saying "you are wrong?"

and someone please tell me how religion 'explains the mysteries of life'?????? or 'explains' anything at all.....

But that isn't the point, is it? The fact is that for billions, it *seems to* explain things. That is the problem! Yes, that is a delusion. The question is what do we do about it?

Going to up a poor illiterate farmer in South America and saying 'religion is nonsense - just read the Origin of Species' is not going to achieve anything. Religion is a motivation and a consolation. It is a false one, sure, but if we want to make progress in replacing it in such situations, we have to think of alternative philosophies if we are going to 'spread the word' of rationality in such situations.

1835. Thought vs. feeling in religion

Comment #41541 by steve99 on May 16, 2007 at 9:23 am

I feel many people here are too quick to dismiss the first few sentences. Religion is so successful because for so many people it does at least seem to explain the mysteries of life, and does help overcome life's difficulties. To claim it does not do this for people is to miss the whole problem, which is that the majority of humankind have never really understood what 'explanation' really means.

Sure, James Carroll could have worded things better, but the fact is that in terms of what the majority of people think he is right, and this is on the whole a pretty reasonable objective article about the state of religion.

There are many things to criticise about this article. For example, I am not sure there is any evidence to suggest that "more and more" people are looking to religion; in fact, I think that is nonsense. But there are also things to admire in what he says, such as this

In Latin America, impoverished people depend on religion for meaning and hope, but it is important that their beliefs not reinforce what keeps them impoverished. A piety that emphasizes rewards in heaven, downplaying the significance of the here and now, can do this. Fundamentalist religion has such tendencies, and should be criticized for them.

Sure, we here all know that religious explanations aren't really explanations at all.... but this article contains some useful points. When poor people in the 3rd world look for meaning, we aren't going to get very far if we try and tell them to 'think about the works of Einstein' or 'look at what Hubble has revealed'. We need to think of arguments and philosophical approaches suited to such situations. What is an atheist equivalent to 'Liberation Theology'?

Simply stopping at the second sentence with an exclamation of 'nonsense' is not going help with progress in spreading rationality.

1836. Hitchens' flat world

Comment #41424 by steve99 on May 16, 2007 at 5:30 am

Father De Sousa needs to get his history right. I am sure Hitchens very deliberately and ironically used the word 'emancipator' in comparing Lincoln and Darwin.

Abraham Lincoln is usually thought of as the great slave-freer; the great emancipator. However, his position was ambiguous. In his inaugural speech he said that he had no intention "to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.". His personal views were different, but he was prepared to compromise them for politics, at least for a while.

On the other hand, Darwin was unambiguous on this matter. From Voyage of the Beagle: "I thank God, I shall never again visit a slave-country [...] It makes one's blood boil, yet heart tremble, to think that we Englishmen and our American descendants, with their boastful cry of liberty, have been and are so guilty."

Christopher Hitchens is clever. Very clever. De Sousa has fallen into the trap, and makes himself look foolish.

1837. The Creation Museum: Prepare to believe

Comment #41396 by steve99 on May 16, 2007 at 4:40 am

So much for Stephen Jay Gould's 'Non Overlapping Magisteria'.

1838. Television evangelist Falwell dies at 73

Comment #41367 by steve99 on May 16, 2007 at 2:42 am

I have been shocked by some of the comments on this thread. Hatred may be understandable - I am gay, and Falwell made clear his feelings about the likes of me. But dancing on his grave is going to do no-one any good, and when it gets to the stage of some here flaming others for suggesting moderation...

1839. Hitchens vs. Hannity on Religion and God

Comment #41357 by steve99 on May 16, 2007 at 1:52 am

"Someone needs to illustrate the life and times of the tribe among us made up of people who yearn for truth and who prize honesty above other things. Show how this tribe is present, real, and heroic. Show how easy it is to join. No secret handshakes or membership fees needed. Simply learn the rules we use to establish certain propositions as more or less factually true."

This is a point I repeatedly try and make in this type of discussion here and elsewhere on the web. People already have written about such groups of people. There is a well-known group of people that numbers in the millions. They don't rely on faith. They accept doubt. They don't believe in a God or Creator. They life lives as full of comfort and happiness as Christians (perhaps more in many cases).

They are called Buddhists.

I find it astonishing when so many Christians say "if you don't believe in God and Heaven and Hell you can't be immoral". Even supposedly well-educated figures. There are hundreds of millions of Buddhists who have no such beliefs and they aren't living selfish immoral lives!

1840. Hitchens vs. Hannity on Religion and God

Comment #41074 by steve99 on May 15, 2007 at 1:15 pm

"I think that there are some scientist right here on earth currently trying to create seperate universes as we speak."

There are some extremely interesting new particle physics experiments due soon, but I think you are mistaken about this - the energies required are way, way beyond anything we can achieve. You can find more here:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6545246

"If they succeded and their new universe was dialed (anthropic principle) in correctly, and life formed, they would then be God like too...

Any thoughts?"

If I remember right, I have heard Dawkins discuss this, and he made a very good point. This 'creator' would not be a God. He/She/It would be as much of an evolved intelligence as we are. The God atheists argue against is a supernatural being - the supposed 'First Cause' of Aquinas, and an intervening miracle-worker and prayer-answerer.

Good point though...

1841. Hitchens vs. Hannity on Religion and God

Comment #41070 by steve99 on May 15, 2007 at 1:05 pm

blueollie:

As for being a mathematician - well, partly! I have had a long scientific career, involving computer science, biochemistry, some physics, and theoretical thermodynamics - the last one involved frightening amounts of maths, most of which I have forgotten!

You are right about having to change the 'axiom'. The problem, and it is a very big one, is the emotional attachment to religious 'axioms'. Many people associate the 'faith and God exists axioms' with home, family, community, friends, and a deep feeling of comfort. I know this because I was brought up Catholic, and I can remember the deep warm feeling that belief gave me. (I remember thinking what a nasty and misleading song John Lennon's 'Imagine there's no Heaven' was). I gave up finally in my late teens because of the inconsistencies, although even a child I found the idea of the Christian eternal Heaven rather frightening and unpleasant (in much the same was as Hitchens describes). But I can still remember the very strong attraction of the faith.

1842. Hitchens vs. Hannity on Religion and God

Comment #41043 by steve99 on May 15, 2007 at 11:50 am

I don't think that people with faith are necessarily fooling themselves or ignorant. I think a lot of it is that they simply have not come across any other way of thinking. To say that they know they are fooling themselves is to hugely underestimate the problem that atheists face in trying to spread the message.

Many people discover critical thinking for themselves; many don't. Also, many people don't start from the same 'axioms' as scientists. I think the last point is why so many go on about Dawkins' lack of discussion of theology. They start from the 'god exists' axiom, and everything builds from there, so from their point of view, theological discussions are both critical and rational, and Dawkins is not being rational...

It can be a big step, and a big shock, for some people, no matter how educated and intelligent to make the leap to scientific axioms and rationality.

1843. Dogma

Comment #41037 by steve99 on May 15, 2007 at 11:35 am

Brian. Your videos are good, and I am sure they will be very valuable to many. I am certainly not saying as strong as there being 'harm' to the site as such - that would be both hugely excessive and extremely rude!

One of my thoughts is that is this absolutely fair to thousands of others who also would like the exposure of being on such a high-prestige site? I am not saying this for myself - I have not got the talent to do anything like this; but even a quick scan through YouTube shows there are many, many others also with talent battling away without such publicity and support. Is there a place on this site that invites contributions from them? Should there be? That is the kind of discussion I personally think could be useful.

You are right about 'short pithy videos on YouTube', but I think you are wrong about the phrase 'even here' (which makes this site sound less important) I would imagine this is not just a high-quality site, but a high traffic one. My personal view, for what it is worth, is that if this site is opened up to personal YouTube and similar contributions, in addition to the world-class contributions of the some of world's best thinkers and writers (OK, and some pretty poor contributions from our opponents!), perhaps there could be a better way of categorising or arranging things. Personally, I wonder if even the current way that things are posted is as clear as it might be. I would find it useful if there was some hint as to the type of contribution in the list: review, article etc. In addition to just 'text/video/sound' as now.

Providing URLs like you have here, linking to all your videos, and to others sites is a really good idea - perhaps that kind of thing may be a more useful thing to submit here than a series of individual videos, perhaps? Personally, I would find that more useful, as it would give me a better way to keep track of things!

1844. Dogma

Comment #40898 by steve99 on May 15, 2007 at 7:15 am

JemyM: I am sure that is the case. But so are many, many others who also make videos - you can easily find superb material with a quick search of the internet. There are likely to be tens of thousands (at least!) of knowledgeable atheists with good teaching skills out there on the net. Is this the correct site to promote such material? That was all that concerned me, especially when 4 videos were posted in the same day. If the site was to be opened up to posting the work of more than 'The Four Musketeers' of Atheism (now, plus Hitchens and a few more) where does it stop? Who gets to send in material, and who doesn't? If we are to be fair to all those other knowledgeable atheist teachers, shouldn't they be able to promote their work here too? How would that change the nature of this site? Perhaps it would be a good thing to allow this site to be used for such promotion - who knows?

1845. Dogma

Comment #40824 by steve99 on May 15, 2007 at 4:15 am

Russell: if that is the intention of the videos, then I can see merit in including them (after all, Dawkins et al do an unbeatable job of addressing these issues for adults, and there is little point anyone else trying to cover the same ground on this site). However, in that case it may perhaps be appropriate to label them (here at least) as 'material for a younger audience'? I did not get that vibe from the videos, so others could misunderstand too.

1846. Dogma

Comment #40557 by steve99 on May 14, 2007 at 1:23 pm

>These videos are straightforward,

Indeed.

> well made

Well I certainly could not do better. I would have no idea where to start. I am in awe of anyone who can do this. But how relevant that is I don't know...

>and clarify what could be a complex or
>contentious issues with humour that can be
>understood by anyone.

And Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, or Shermer (especially Shermer!) don't do that?

>They are in very good company on this site

I do find this statement a bit problematic.

Do you really, honestly, seriously consider them in the same ball-park as The Pale Blue Dot by Sagan? Of the excellent and eloquent Sam Harris? Or the crisp and clear Jerry Coyne? Or the acid wit of Hitchens?

If you do, then no offence to the author of the videos, but I just can't accept that. And that is my point.

>This is important stuff not turgid philosophy for
>ancient institutions.

If you are calling articles by Dawkins, Harris, Shermer, Dennett and others 'turgid philosophy for ancient institutions' then I can only say I disagree with you very strongly.

>It is vital that we not only understand the
>arguments but we must marshal them in a coherent
>way that people will be convinced by if we are to
>make progress with reason and critical thinking

And few people do that better than Dawkins. So what value do these add? How do they improve on what Dawkins writes? Or on what Harris writes? Or any of the other world-class writers and intellectuals that this site regularly quotes?

Forgive me if I sound pompous, maybe I am pompous, but I am passionate about rationality and how it is promoted. I don't see how posting the kind of video I see routinely (well, perhaps not routinely - these are better than most) on YouTube helps, no matter how well intentioned, when it is not putting forward any new or newsworthy arguments or issues.

As I said, why not simply have a regular post from someone that lists sites or even lists individual YouTube or Google Video entries that may be a useful resource?

However, I have said my piece. I apologise if I have misread the tone and intention of the site. Brian has gone to a lot of effort to make these videos, and they are admirable, and better than most I have seen.

1847. The Case Against Intelligent Design: The Faith That Dare Not Speak Its Name

Comment #40506 by steve99 on May 14, 2007 at 11:28 am

devolved:

Here is a real gem of biblical wisdom for you:

"You may eat any animal that has a split hoof divided in two and that chews the cud. However, of those that chew the cud or that have a split hoof completely divided you may not eat the camel, the rabbit, or the coney. (Deuteronomy 14:6-7)"

Watch out for those rabbit pies!

1848. Dogma

Comment #40446 by steve99 on May 14, 2007 at 9:53 am

>I disagree... I think these videos is very >educational. What is wrong with posting 4 videos >from the same person. It is the value of the >message that counts.

>Does it really matter if their from the same
>person... I don't get it?

I really hope that what I am about to say is not taken the wrong way, as I think any effort to counter irrationality is a good thing and should be encouraged.

However, this is a high profile site. It provides links to articles by Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett, Harris and many other well known writers and speakers of the highest quality and international reputation. It presents articles relevant to current news stories and by high-profile writers with national and international presence that matter to the debate about rationality. It shows articles of global interest in science.

Or at least, that is what my impression is.

What value do these videos add to the debate that has not already been expressed eloquently by so many others? Have these videos (like some recorded by the Rational Response Squad) been discussed on national news programmes? Do they rank alongsite contributions by Sagan? Or even Roy Zimmerman? Do they expose some new urgent controversy?

If we are open to such videos being presented, I believe it will open a floodgate for hundreds of others from a variety of contributors. It will dilute what seems to be message of the site, or at least the message as I see it, which I admit I may be mistaken about.

I feel the place for such videos, unless they have some exceptional merit, or some particular news value, or some unique new point of view, is on a personal site, perhaps with the occasional link publicised.

But then that is just my personal opinion... If this does not make sense - ignore me!

----------
Added so I don't seem so negative: What at least I would find interesting would be a video about how to design a YouTube presentation on such matters. How individuals can contribute to the debate using such new media (well, new to a middle-aged guy like me) - guidelines for beginners. That may perhaps be more relevant and newsworthy.

1849. Dogma

Comment #40416 by steve99 on May 14, 2007 at 9:11 am

I am afraid I have to whinge just a little too. I am sure these video clips are made with the best intentions, and it is good that they are made, but why are these shown, as against those of many others who have put equal time and effort into their presentations? (Just in case this seems like self promotion, I am not one of them!)

Surely a better approach would be to have a weekly or fortnightly article which can provide a list of such videos which users of this site may find of interest, both personally and for educating others. Posting 4 videos from the same person on a site like this on one day seems a little bit over the top.

1850. The Case Against Intelligent Design: The Faith That Dare Not Speak Its Name

Comment #40410 by steve99 on May 14, 2007 at 8:56 am

>Isn't evolution an attempt to sneak atheism into
>public schools

Well, Del, no lesser Christian authority than Pope John Paul II said that there is no conflict between Christianity and Evolution, so I guess not.

>So let the children explore both sides and give
>them room to decide. What's the harm? Or are you
>scared if they question too much they may find
>faults in Darwin's theory?

There is nothing to be scared of in that. All scientific theories have faults. But that is not your agenda, is it? Your agenda is is not for children to find faults and realise that science had gaps that have yet to be filled. Your agenda is to indoctrinate them with what should fill those gaps. Intelligent Design pre-judges what the answers to the questions are. It does not allow the open-mindedness that is science. It does not encourage the honesty to say "I don't know".

Would you do this in a Physics Lesson? We know that general relativity is incomplete, but are you going to insist that students are taught Intelligent Gravity? That whenever we don't understand gravity, God did it?

Your position is intellectually dishonest.