151. For God's Sake

Comment #31690 by WilliamP on April 13, 2007 at 9:15 pm

Stereoroid,
thanks for the NY Times link. I had no idea about the podcasts, but then again I only just got an mp3 player a few weeks ago. I'm a bit behind the times.
Jimill,
considering how behind the times I am, maybe I would fit in at a backward-thinking institution like Regent.

152. For God's Sake

Comment #31580 by WilliamP on April 13, 2007 at 11:01 am

you'd end up with a degree that only qualified you to work in a Republican government

You know, I should have mentioned that I don't think that I could keep a straight face working in the Justice Department under any administration that would hire a Regent Law graduate either. I mean, come on!

By the way, I'd like to thank the NY Times for allowing this posting. Usually you have to pay to read writings by columnists like Paul Krugman and Thomas Friedman; and those two are the only ones worth reading on a regular basis. For those of you who read the NY Times regularly, and feel the same way about Maureen Dowd as I feel, here's a great link for you from the Onion:

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/most_e_mailed_list_tearing_new

153. For God's Sake

Comment #31570 by WilliamP on April 13, 2007 at 9:52 am

Funny thing, I was just applying to law schools this past year and guess who invited me to apply. Yup, Regent. I'm clearly not a Christian, but I was invited to apply anyway. I thought about it too. I could do some damage to the school, and probably get a good scholarship too. The only problem is that I don't think I'd be able to keep a straight face for three years. It would be a funny situation, you have to admit; like a sitcom or something.

154. Pope says science too narrow to explain creation

Comment #31325 by WilliamP on April 12, 2007 at 2:51 am

Pope says science too narrow to explain creation

WilliamP says Pope's mind is too narrow to understand evolution

155. Is God poison?

Comment #31200 by WilliamP on April 11, 2007 at 10:34 am

Helian,
I'm an American expatriate too actually, and I do agree that there is a lot of absurd criticism about the US. I also dislike Bush for the most part, but I think that the US and Bush take a lot of unballanced criticism. It seems absurd to me, for example, that Bush has heard far more opposition for invading Iraq than Saddam ever heard for murdering children with banned chemical weapons. I also think that the rest of the world is too quick to point the finger for US failures in Iraq. I don't exactly see anyone else sending more troops to help the poor Iraqis.

I haven't read "The God Delusion" yet, but your claims seem to be that Dawkins said:
1. (Erroneously) that a member of the Regan admin. called for a nuclear apocalypse.
2. Fundamentalist Christian Americans are like the Taliban.
3. The US government is a Christian theocracy.

Again, I haven't read the book, so I don't know his exact words. I don't think that I'd call him Anti-American based on this alone. His criticism really seems to be focused at conservative Christians, not the US in general. Your main contention seems to be that he made unsupported claims about the things listed above.

Perhaps he has good reasons to believe these things, perhaps he had a lapse in research, perhaps he's indulging in his dislike of religion. I don't know. Your claim just seems to be that he was uncritical about some statements about the Christian Fundamentalists. That's certainly not sufficient to make him anti-American. After all, he did also write this:

Please please, don't ever accuse me of anti-Americanism. It is mainly because of my love of America that I, along with all my many American friends, loathe and detest Bush and the damage he has done to that great republic.

156. Is God poison?

Comment #30911 by WilliamP on April 10, 2007 at 9:45 am

I hope you infer innocently William...

Don't worry Yorker, it's a joke at Haggard's expense, not yours.

I wonder if he's a closet Darwinist too.

157. Is God poison?

Comment #30896 by WilliamP on April 10, 2007 at 9:02 am

Yorker on Haggard:

I would've done my best to make him physically assault me...oh how I would have enjoyed that!

I'm sure that he would have enjoyed it too.

158. The Coulter Hoax: How Ann Coulter Exposed the Intelligent Design Movement

Comment #30801 by WilliamP on April 9, 2007 at 10:10 pm

The article was good, but I bet this will show up on the back cover of the next updated edition of "Godless":

"Coulter has very cleverly written a... criticism of evolution... And it was brilliant." -Peter Olofsson, PhD in mathematical statistics of Göteborg University

159. Praying for the Apocalypse

Comment #30693 by WilliamP on April 9, 2007 at 11:11 am

Isn't the Rapture the time when all faithful Christians disappear from the face of the earth? Isn't everyone on this website waiting for that too?

160. Prophets of the new atheism

Comment #30540 by WilliamP on April 8, 2007 at 1:33 pm

Comment #30458 by epeeist
You said:

Posit a simple god designing a self-learning mechanism.

That could be a way to have a creator that isn't in conflict with the Discovery Institute's principle of "complexity necessitates design". But I wonder what they have to say about it. Could they come up with anything that is explanatory or anything that doesn't violate Occum's razor? What evidence would they present? They always run from the hairy business of naming a creator, or a creation process. What would people have though if Darwin had posited evolution but refused to describe it?

All they ever seem to do is talk about the idea that what is complex must be designed. Here's a quote from an article I found on their site entitled "Intelligence by Design":

the flagellum is complex--that is, there is an extremely low probability that such a structure could be the product of chance

Of course they suggest that it was designed, but if they find flagella to be so complex, then they better come up with some answers as to what created them. In arguing for design, they may appeal to common sense by claiming that there are no cars without engineers, but I can appeal to common sense and say: So, god is less complex than a flagella-bearing protazoan?

And by the way, I've never heard of cars reproducing sexually, so I guess "no cars without engineers" isn't a good analogy for living things. If objects desinged by humans could reproduce, that'd be great. I need a new computer, does anyone have one have a laptop in stud?

161. Prophets of the new atheism

Comment #30418 by WilliamP on April 8, 2007 at 3:01 am

By religion, I mean any faith-based set of values that makes exclusive claims for its truth and explains the mysteries of the universe. Yes, atheism begins with a faith, namely that only material and physical (not spiritual) causes make the world run.

Well, finally we see why a theist belives that atheism is a religion; and it's because he's wrong about atheism. I don't know any atheists who would reject a spiritual cause for the world if there were evidence of one. If there are any, then they are a different kind of atheist from the kind I am.

About atheists he says:

A favorite strategy of such groups has long been to attack cartoon versions of older rival religions.

He would seem a lot more clever in saying this if he wasn't guilty of it himself--in the same article nonetheless. He clearly has failed to understand atheism as Dawkins and Harris have described it. Yet he does assert:

Dawkins does not grapple with the latest arguments for intelligent design as formulated by their chief proponents

Has he made an attempt to address Dawkin's argument against the Design Argument? The Discovery Institute should be scrambling to undo the damage that "The God Delusion" has done to their work. Somehow they forgot in aserting that design is necessary for complexity, that a complex designer needs to be designed too. Ooops. Where does their money go? Why are they wasting their time writing books called "Shattered Tablets: Why We Ignore the Ten Commandments at Our Peril"? They have far more imporant things to do and they can't move ahead a bit until they answer Dawkins' argument.

162. Answers To the Atheists

Comment #30269 by WilliamP on April 7, 2007 at 11:17 am

The problem with the neo-atheists is that they seem as dogmatic as the dogmatists they condemn.

Again, like in the Moore article before this, atheists are seen as dogmatic. I really don't understand why this is the case. Here is a set of definitions of dogma for those who are wondering like me what the author is saying here: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dogma

I can only see how atheism might fit the broadest definition of dogma, which is listed as "a principle or belief" in the above link. Really, then any belief could fit this definition, including the belief that I have milk in my refrigerator. But he means to equate atheist belief with religious faith or authority.

As I understand it, the "neo-atheism" addressed here rejects faith and belief based on uncritical appeals to authority. If he thinks that this is a principle and therefore dogma, then it's equivocal to say that it is dogma in the religious sense, where dogma is an absolute dictum from authority.

Perhaps we need to do more to disabuse people of the notion that atheism is dogmatic. Perhap theists discussing atheism have to do more to understand what they are talking about.

And why can't he joing us atheists? I just don't get it. Aren't we passionate too?

163. Militant atheists: too clever for their own good

Comment #30089 by WilliamP on April 7, 2007 at 12:11 am

I feel that atheism may be acquiring precisely those characteristics that atheists so dislike about religion - intolerance, dogmatism, righteousness, moral contempt for one's opponents.

I really resent hearing this. Francis Collins (the Genome Project leader) has said something similar about atheist dogma in a recent CNN interview and he used to be an atheist. I think most atheists don't accept things on authority, but are atheists because they have actually thought long and hard about whether or not god exists. Most atheists would be willing to change their minds if Christ, Mithras, Cthullu, Allah, Apollo, or any other god descended from the sky and started performing miracles.

If there are any atheists that accept atheism on authority or faith, then perhaps we could call them "faith-based atheists" and catagorize them with religious people.

164. Postmodernism Disrobed

Comment #29459 by WilliamP on April 3, 2007 at 1:57 am

Ellen, that's more information about Postmodernism than I have ever gotten before when I had asked people about it. That makes some sense, but I don't understand how its unique writing style follows, though. Thanks.

And Smurrish, I'm not trying to hold people to harsh standards, I just expected to find more information in all these comments defending PM. And I also didn't refresh the page for a long time before I posted my last comment and I didn't see Ellen's post.

165. Postmodernism Disrobed

Comment #29431 by WilliamP on April 2, 2007 at 11:06 pm

I have to say that I have read over more than two pages of comments here and I still have little idea of what Postmodernism (PM) is. Some have posted definitions, and then others who claim to know something about PM have said those definitions are wrong. What is it then? Tell us, don't hide behind mystery like religions does.

Those here who claim to understand PM say that Dawkins and others who criticise it here don't understand it. I think, based on their comments, that most people here are trying to understand it. It seems that many who have tried now believe that there is nothing of substance to understand and have stopped trying because they think it is a waste of time.

If the PM side is offended by those of us who supposedly don't understand it making conclusions about it, then try to understand our postion. Above Dawkins asked:

"No doubt there exist thoughts so profound that most of us will not understand the language in which they are expressed. And no doubt there is also language designed to be unintelligible in order to conceal an absence of honest thought. But how are we to tell the difference?"

Yes, how? Dawkins has given an answer, but if the PM people insist that he is wrong, let's hear why. Please, I really would like to know.

If I believe that PM is bull dressed up to make it's proponents look smart, then I would exepct that PM proponents would accuse its critics of not understanding it. When that keeps happening, it doesn't look good for the PM case. Also, if I keep making inquiries into whether or not PM is a bunch of muddle-headed crap, and the only answers that I get about it are muddle-headed crap, then what am I to do than conclude that it is? I honestly would like to know why I'm wrong in thinking this.

166. Postmodernism Disrobed

Comment #29216 by WilliamP on April 2, 2007 at 5:53 am

I actually had a friend who was interested in Feminism tell me that Feminist writing is so unclear because the level of argument involved is embarassingly simplistic when compared to most other academic writing. She went on to assure me, however, that it was good academic work.

Many people in academics know that this sort of thing is going on all the time. I wonder why more don't speak out about it.

Then again, out of those who arent't doing it, maybe it's just a few who realize it. Some people with Phd's just don't know how to reason. I have had professors who didn't know what circular arguments were!

167. U.N. Panel OKs Measure on Islam

Comment #28865 by WilliamP on March 31, 2007 at 11:54 am

Maybe now I'll go and start my own religion, where my followers have deep faith in the practice of making fun of every other religion on the planet. When people complain about my bashing their religion, I can claim that they are discriminating against my religious beliefs.

168. Richard Dawkins Explains 'The God Delusion'

Comment #28663 by WilliamP on March 30, 2007 at 9:57 am

It seems that Helian, briancoughlanworldcitizen, Ridelo, and ohters have been discussing whether or not Dawkins has adopted religious thinking and stopped looking at evidence for his claims. I'm sure a good source of evidence for your claims about Prof. Dawkins might be the man himself. This is his website, afterall, and you probably could ask him what he was thinking.
He might give a well reasoned answer that shows that he hasn't gone nuts that would satisfy the Ridelo/worldcitizen side, or he might respond in a dogmatic rant that would vindicate Helian. I'm sure he's a busy guy, but he has addressed questions about his arguments posted on this site before.

169. How Many Scientists?

Comment #28488 by WilliamP on March 29, 2007 at 11:29 am

A good explanation for Bush's motivations might be his faith. He is a strict Christian, and although I don't think he follows Christian teachings very closely, I do think that his thinking is similar to that associated with faith. It seems that when people have faith in something, they seek evidence for it, but ignore or dismiss evidence against it.
I think that Bush does this when it comes to climate change, since he seems to only listen to people who agree with him on the subject. It seems even more clear that he did so leading into the Iraq war when he was only interested in evidence that confirmed his belief that Saddam had WMD's. I doubt that he lied to go to war in Iraq, I don't think he even knew how to consider the evidence.

170. Orr vs. Dennett/Dawkins

Comment #27185 by WilliamP on March 23, 2007 at 12:40 pm

I applaud Dawkins for making this argument and bringing this problem with the Design Argument (DA) to the forefront. This needed to happen because it is a potentially fatal flaw in the argument that many people use to justify their beliefs in god.

If Orr wants a more fair representation of religion from Dawkins, maybe he should also be fair to the DA proponents and ask them just what they think of the issue of complexity of the "creator(s)" that they claim made the universe. I'm sure they won't think that it's necessary to have a creator that is more complex than its creation because that would obviously contradict their main argument. What would they say, though? For DA-justified Theists, it would be very hard to come up with a reasonable definition of complexity that describes the whole of the universe, yet doesn't describe an all-knowing, omnipotent diety.

Such a definition of complexity might be possible to concieve. I don't see Orr doing it, but he does suggest that god might not be "necessarily complex in the same way as the universe", but doesn't suggest how or why that's even relevant. Are we to say that A-type complexity means that god made it, but B-type complexity means that it is god. How do we know? I don't see why he's so bitter toward Dawkins and Dennet for not considering these remote and muddled possiblities.

I also don't see any DA proponents coming up with a way to justify the belief that complex things are neccesarily created, but their creator isn't. They should if they want their arguments to survive. Until they do, it looks like Dawkins has the final word.

171. Britain Proposes Allowing Schools to Forbid Full-Face Muslim Veils

Comment #26745 by WilliamP on March 21, 2007 at 1:13 pm

It seems that Muslims in Europe are always claiming that religious sensitivities need to be honored by the rest of society. I suppose they would give up this fight if there were a religious group that required its members to wear Muhammed masks in public at all times.