201. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #174474 by Bonzai on May 2, 2008 at 1:33 pm

As far as "failed ideology" goes, it is important to take into account historical context.

Did Manley fail in Jamaica because of socialism, or was it because of U.S. economical sabotage?

Did the Sadinista fail in Nicaragua because of bad ideology, or the terrorist war waged by the U.S? Now after becoming a "democracy" for about twenty years with U.S. blessing and becomes the second poorest country in the continent with one of the highest illiteracy rate.

Did Alandi fail in Chile because of bankrupted ideology or because of CIA coup?

Yes, we should look at evidence and data, but not selectively.

202. Muslim Rebel Sisters: At Odds With Islam and Each Other

Comment #174448 by Bonzai on May 2, 2008 at 12:42 pm

Christopher

But doesn't her speculation that she'd probably be an atheist if she had been brought up in the Muslim world sort of argue against the viability or reforming Islam? I mean, by her own admission she wouldn't know what "true Islam" is if she hadn't had the privelege of being raised outside the Muslim world.

I don't know, you'd better ask her yourself. She has a website and apparently does answer emails,

Personally I think she is on a Quixotic errand. Worse, even some genuine moderates who agree with the premise that Islam must be reformed don't take her seriously because apparently she is not that knowledgeable about Islam (of course I can't judge, I am just telling you what I heard from some Muslims, and they are a pretty liberal bunch)

Then her very pro Israeli stance on the ME conflict turns off a lot of Muslims,--the audience whom she tries to reach, Even Tarek Fatah, a very outspoken shit disturbing liberal Muslim in Toronto,--himself under multiple death threats,-- wrote a scathing disclaimer denying having anything to do with Manji when her book came out. Fatah is the founder of the Canadian Muslim Congress, a very liberal Muslim outfit which supported same sex marriage and campaigned against Sharia.

Some Muslims accuse her of trying to be the "token Muslim" for the Western audience and they are really annoyed that Manji always begins her speech with "As a Muslim.. I believe..." as if she speaks for the faith and then goes on to give a whole bunch of personal opinions. They would be more happy if she simply becomes an atheist like Ayan.

203. Muslim Rebel Sisters: At Odds With Islam and Each Other

Comment #174415 by Bonzai on May 2, 2008 at 11:51 am

Christopher

WTF? So what is she saying? That if she had actually been exposed to the religion she is supporting she would disown it?

Manji doesn't think any nominal Islamic country practices "true Islam". In her view their Islam is a mutation perverted by Arab tribal cultures. she meant she would have rebelled had she been brought up in the Muslim world because she loathes Islam as it is practiced in these places,

204. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #174405 by Bonzai on May 2, 2008 at 11:38 am

I think Chomsky basically writes as an American. When he writes about other countries, his focus is almost exclusively on their interactions with the U.S.

So his take on the Islamic world would highlight Western meddling in the region rather than treating the Islamic world on its own term, like a historian would. There are some good and important insights with his approach provided you know what kind of questions to ask, but his works don't give you a good, general understanding of the Islamic world view and how it enables and animates political movements.

Chomsky can be a good and useful source if you know his limitations and have some idea about what kind of questions he addresses.But he is not a good guide to understand world history or even contemporary politics if you don't have a more rounded background from somewhere else. If you only read Chomsky you may come away with the impression that people and governments outside the U.S are just passive actors or props for American foreign policies.

My 2 cents.

205. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #174372 by Bonzai on May 2, 2008 at 10:28 am

Quetz


Maybe he has mistaken his shrink to be his wife. :)

206. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #174275 by Bonzai on May 2, 2008 at 12:50 am

Haha, Teratonis does have a sense of humour.

In one post he manages to somehow talk about both his favourite topics,--peak oil and wikipedia,-- even though they are completely unrelated to what he is supposed to be commenting on.

It must be like George Costanza having sex and eating a sandwich at the same time.

207. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #174274 by Bonzai on May 2, 2008 at 12:43 am

Mphil

I think the great philosophers were/are still far less susceptible to brainwashing than an ordinary joe

Perhaps, but I suspect that great philosophers are far more susceptible to self delusions than the ordinary Joe. Clever people are much better in creating their only reality and rationalizing about it.

This is especially a trap for philosophers because they tend to live in their heads and word arguments not anchored in reality can be twisted and perverted so easily.

208. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #174271 by Bonzai on May 2, 2008 at 12:33 am

Bonzai you make it sound as if beating off is a bad thing to do...it did sound so negative.

How is it negative? Just amaze that someone can beat off and type at the same time.

209. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #174266 by Bonzai on May 2, 2008 at 12:22 am

Styrer

that I suddenly realised that you might have been intending to be a bit mean to me.

Not really. I was sincerely congratulating you. I am a South Park fan after all.:)

210. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #174265 by Bonzai on May 2, 2008 at 12:17 am

Robo.

Thanks for sharing, I don't really care what kind of music are you beating off to, just that your avatar is driving me into a styrer mode.

211. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #174261 by Bonzai on May 2, 2008 at 12:10 am

like Voltaire, or Kant (whose theism was radically different from anything the church offered) or de la Rochefoucauld, acheive a high level of "mental immunity".

A fascinating psychological case study would be Auguste Comte, the arch positivist. He cracked when his wife died and the whole rational facade melted away. He built a cult around her and made his students worship her.

I don't believe the human mind is fundamentally rational.

212. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #174220 by Bonzai on May 1, 2008 at 10:46 pm

Thank you dear Styrer for the info.

I think we should make you our official site asshole and I mean it as a compliment and in an endearing kind of way. It is a talent to be able to swear and insult people like you do, next I hope you will be making your own DVD like Pat Condell. BTW, I do like Pat Condell. :)

213. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #174201 by Bonzai on May 1, 2008 at 9:06 pm

Don_Quix

Pardon my ignorance, who is that woman that Dawkins morphs into? Or are you just having fantasies about him? ;)

214. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #174200 by Bonzai on May 1, 2008 at 9:04 pm

Goldy,

What is Mrs. Goldy's take on Tibet and the Olympic?

215. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #174188 by Bonzai on May 1, 2008 at 8:30 pm

Goldy

I think that is one of the growing resentments Chinese have against the western media - we tend to focus on the bad, missing the good.

Well for some Chinese the issue is not whether the depiction is true, but rather it hurts their egos by airing their dirty laundry to the world. Yet unfortunately the government wouldn't do anything unless foreigners start making noises.

Remember last years some dogs in the U.S. died as a result of eating made in China pet food? After that the Chinese government made a great effort to clean up their acts and even inviting Americans to inspect their factories. But for China's Asian neighbours this is hardly anything new, they have known for years that you gotta be careful with Chinese import because there is so much counterfeit and fake. But the Chinese wouldn't care if it is just the neighbours complaining. When Americans complain, they apologize and take actions.


The Hong Kong legislator Martin Lee is called a "traitor" by pro mainland types because he was criticizing China's human rights record in international venues, including the U.S. congress. Interestingly, his critics don't dispute the substance of his charges, they just don't like the fact that he was broadcasting his grievances to foreigners. My response to "patriotic" type is that he wouldn't have to go to the white man if the Chinese rulers have enough self respect. If anyone should feel ashamed, it should be the people in charge who would only take the foreigners seriously.

I remembered many years ago when I started university I met a group of students from mainland China. I asked them about the situation in China. They all told me things were really rosy and the foreign media only focused on the negative, etc. Then in the middle of it this guy from Shanghai got really angry and told them to shut the fuck up. He then said everything they told me were lies, they oughted to ashamed of themselves to have treated me like a foreigner, He didn't necessary object to lying to foreigner, but he considered me a Chinese person, so I had the right to know the truth,

Edit And oh, even the judge, whenever he was asked about China by our white neighbours, he would tell them one story, and he would tell me something completely different in Chinese when they were gone.

I have Mao, the untold story on the shelf at home. Wife wants to read it but can't - not yet.

I don't think your wife would like it. From what I gather there is a lot of yellow journalism and I don't know how the author would know so much about Mao's private life unless she hid in his bedroom.

216. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #174152 by Bonzai on May 1, 2008 at 6:54 pm

Goldy

But talking to those that are here, those that study, that live, that are married outside of China, life is not as bad as you think.

True. But those are probably members of the urban middle class.

It is easy to circumvent things there, information is there for the taking and everyone knows how to get it...if they want (the recent BBC thing about truthful reporting shows many are as lazy as Fox news watchers).

I know that. But again you are talking about the urban middle class. They are not so bad off, never dispute that. But still the majority of Chinese live in the rural area and many don't have access to basic health and education. I don't think they really worry about internet access or BBC news. There are two Chinas, perhaps more. Most of us in the West see only one and what you hear about what is so bad about China in the media often misses the point entirely.

The things you describe have been a way of Chinese living since some bloke made unified the states under the Qin - saving money for rainy days is intrinsic to Chinese living and they do.

I am not sure what you mean. Gratuitous consumption is much more rampant and grotesque in China than it is here, for those who could afford it of course.

Several years ago I had a neighbour who was a visiting judge from China. He came here to study the Canadian legal system. He was a young man, about 35, 36..Every night we would go out for coffee with a bunch of white guys who lived in the same building. His judgeship was very interested in the the entertainment venues in Toronto. The white guys were very enthusiastic in telling him about the tourist attractions, the bars, the restaurants etc. He would listen, nod and smile, never said anything. Afterwards he would speak to me in Chinese that these people were really peasants, the entertainment scene in big cities like Shanghai (where he came from) was much grander than anything in Toronto. For example, he mentioned a whole street of Karaoke bars that costed $500 U.S. a night and they were always full.

Being told what to do is intrinsic to Chinese living and they know how to cope.

I think that is a stereotype. If it is so "intrinsic" to the Chinese to be told what to do, they wouldn't have to use such brutal force to ensure obedience.

Blame the wife - she still loves Mao

I don't know how your wife loves Mao. Sometimes I got called a Mao apologist by just trying to explain Mao in the proper context of Chinese history,--by Fanusi, for example.In the West Mao is a cartoonish villian, often mentioned in the same breath with Hitler and Stalin, it is not a fair assessment IMO.

217. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #174132 by Bonzai on May 1, 2008 at 5:42 pm

"big bang in my heart"? I am sure you can induce one by eating bacon and drinking the lard.No god required.

218. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #174129 by Bonzai on May 1, 2008 at 5:28 pm

Goldy

Doesn't help that everything is such a secret there - what we know of the economy is what they tell us and sometimes they don't really like to say much...

Lots of GDP growth in the coastal cities are the results of scams, prostitutions, corruptions and their spin offs. Workers have much less rights than they are in the advanced capitalist countries. In China the job of the union (state controlled) is to make sure the workers follow orders.

There is very little social safety net in China even comparing to Hong Kong, not to mention Canada or Europe.

In China the state is a bed fellow of the capitalists, not the workers and ordinary folks, The state is powerful, but it has nothing to do with socialism except in name.

219. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #174126 by Bonzai on May 1, 2008 at 5:21 pm

Goldy

You'd be surprised how free one is over there

You are free as long as you don't talk about politics openly, or broadcasting opinions that may potentially embarrass the government and that can be very broad.

Also, local party thugs have a lot of powers, they don't always do things according to central directives.

220. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #174121 by Bonzai on May 1, 2008 at 5:15 pm

Mitchell

I didn't know that it was your native language, because I only knew you were Chinese, living in Canada, a number of things could be meant by that.

For instance, I find it odd when people that were born in Canada but aren't white are still refered to as being from a country that the majority shares their ethnicity. None of us originated in Canada, not even natives, so I always find it weird.

I understand what you're saying, but I was born and raised in Hong Kong. I came to Canada when I was 17, after finishing high school there.

221. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #174116 by Bonzai on May 1, 2008 at 4:58 pm

Al

I have repeatedly said "State ownership", you continue to dodge because you know, beyond any doubt that socialism is a bankrupt theory. Expounded my wirey haired whackos in San Francisco cafes, shouted by semi-employed "editors" at anti-war rallies, but totally failed when applied to any real society.

I didn't "dodge". I have continued to tell you that you are wrong in equating socialism with state ownership. You are either not reading very carefully or deliberately being obtuse.

I think I have made it very clear for anyone who can read or care to read.

If state ownership is the same as socialism then medieval kings would all be "socialists" because the king was the state and the king owned everything! The fallacy is so obvious that I don't know how else to make it more plain. Socialism means ownership by "the people", the state is not synonymous with the people if the people have no meaningful participation in the running of the state.

Socialism is impossible without genuine democracy

Note that so far I haven't argued for or against socialism, I am just saying that you don't understand what the word means and go on a rampage.

Keynesian is the opposite of supply side economics. It suggest that the government knows best how to allocate certain resources, while the opposite side says the free market knows best.

First of all this is a false dichotomy, To say that government has a role is not the same as "government knows best", Secondly, "market knows best" is an article of faith. It is your onus to back that up and clarify "knows best" in what sense and for whom if you want to argue for an unregulated free market. I have given some reasons why this is nonsense in my first long post yesterday on this subject, which you admitted that you haven't read.

I start from the premise that the market has to work for the happiness and well being for people, not the other way around.If you have a system where people have to justify their values based on their utility as profit making tools then the system is inheritly wrong.

There must be a reconciliation of the two points. Sometimes the government should administer programs, and sometimes it should not. That is a realistic form of capitalism. But look around you and see the countries flourishing as they become free markets or continue to refine free markets

Then it is not the kind of libertarian "market knows best" capitalism that you seem to be advocating. Many Americans would call Europe "socialist". China is a closer approximation to "free market" than any European country and it has a lot of problems underneath GDP growth and corporate balance sheets.

222. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #174110 by Bonzai on May 1, 2008 at 4:36 pm

He said he works for NASA, or hinted at it. Actually he said something like I work for an agency with four letters the first one being N and the last being A.

Maybe he meant NADA, meaning unemployed. Also, working for NASA is no big deal,NASA has janitors too.

Sorry DD, just can't resist it. :)

223. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #173996 by Bonzai on May 1, 2008 at 12:17 pm

The slogan "moderates enable fundamentalists" makes about as much sense as "Keynesianism covers for communism."


Just thought of that, I can use it as a bumper sticker slogan even though I don't have a car (Teratonis would approve)

224. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #173991 by Bonzai on May 1, 2008 at 12:12 pm

Mitchell

How many do you know Bonzai?

I don't know, I never counted or estimated the number. I can read and write Chinese fluently, I used to write for the school magazine, I speak both Mandarin and Cantonist, though I don't know pinyin. :)

Chinese is my native tongue,

225. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #173981 by Bonzai on May 1, 2008 at 12:04 pm

Steve

You have done far more than that. You often argue that influence of religion is minimal in situations where others consider it significant.

It should be based on the merit of the argument, not whether others consider significant or not. I can take on anyone in those cases.

BY your argument Al should be the biggest apologist as he doesn't even believe that the label "religion" should have any special status at all in those type of discussions.

226. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #173974 by Bonzai on May 1, 2008 at 11:59 am

Re: Socialism

What many Americans call "socialism" actually is not even socialism, it is Keynesianism.

Keynesianism arose because of the inherit instability of the market economy, which brought on the Great Depression. Keynes then developed a kinder, gentler form of capitalism which would reign in some of the excesses of raw Capitalism and save it from destroying itself. The Marxists think that it is a sell out, which prolongs the life of a system which needs to die with a "big bang" (in the sense of Richard Morgan?)

To confuse that with socialism or even Marxism, whatever one's take on socialism or Marxism may be, is sheer ignorance,

227. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #173956 by Bonzai on May 1, 2008 at 11:49 am

I don't believe so. He posts long and thoughtful articles. He doesn't appear to post things with the certainty you do.

So it is a snide remark that I post short and thoughtless articles? That is fine. But look up his take on the issue of moderate enabling fundamentalists,.it is identical to mine and he acknowledges it too.

228. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #173940 by Bonzai on May 1, 2008 at 11:36 am

But I object to the TERM religion. It is simply dogmatic belief.

Fine, as long as we agree what we are actually talking about.

229. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #173938 by Bonzai on May 1, 2008 at 11:33 am

Steve

ou have been an apologist for what you call "moderate" religion here for some time. You have been saying that those who claim moderate religion provides cover for fundamentalists are wrong.

I stand by that. But

1) It has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

2) How am I an "apologist"? I simply state things as I see it, based on my own experience and analysis.

Russell Blackford, for whom I have a lot of respect, happens to agree with me on the moderate enabling fundamentalist issue. Is he an apologist too?

I am not aware that there is a party line that I must toe and that you are appointed to enforce it.Do you fancy yourself a vanguard of the "revolution"?

Sorry Steve, you are an intelligent guy and I am impressed with your vast knowledge and enjoy many of your posts, but sometimes you do seem to take yourself a bit too seriously. You announced that you were going to quit this site and come back not even 24 hours later. I don't really care, you are always welcome as far as I am concerned, but don't be such a drama queen (it is not a homophobic slur from one queen to another)

To call someone an "apologist" is a slur, you should know that.

230. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #173928 by Bonzai on May 1, 2008 at 11:22 am

I have a problem with getting too personal on internet sites, If people want to stop posting, just stop. There is no point making big announcements. It would be a joke if you make a big point that you're not coming back anymore, only to return a few weeks later.

I may be a very cold bastard, but I don't really believe in online relationship. I don't know any of you, though I think it would probably be interesting to have a few beer with some people here. But I don't really think "friendship" is possible without at least some real, face to face interactions.

231. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #173921 by Bonzai on May 1, 2008 at 11:08 am

Mitchell

Buddhists monks have invented the number system we use, and I learnt a short while ago after beginning to learn to read the Kanji, that they invented the Kanji as well. Which is utilized all over Asia if I'm not mistaken. I think that is amazing

Actually, the number system was invented by the ancient Hindus. "Kanjl" is the Japanese way of saying Han (Kan) words(ji), meaning Chinese characters. They were invented by the Chinese long before Buddhism was brought to China.The Japanese adopted some of them into their writing system.

232. Bill Good Interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #173903 by Bonzai on May 1, 2008 at 10:40 am

From Plato, cited by Henri Bergson,

Why, I said, the principle has been already laid down that the best of either sex should be united with the best as often, and the inferior with the inferior, as seldom as possible; and that they should rear the offspring of the one sort of union, but not of the other, if the flock is to be maintained in first-rate condition. Now these goings on must be a secret which the rulers only know, or there will be a further danger of our herd, as the guardians may be termed, breaking out into rebellion.

I was told that Singapore had a policy of eugenics such as those described above in the 1980's.

The government gave financial and tax incentives for educated professional people to have more children while the poor and uneducated would be given incentives to not to have children.

The policy was quietly dropped a few years later when the daughter in law of then Prime Minister Lee Kwong Yew, the grand patriarch of Singapore, gave birth to a child with down syndrome.

233. Girl, 17, killed in Iraq for loving a British soldier

Comment #173877 by Bonzai on May 1, 2008 at 10:11 am

What do you think of this? Australian university soliciting funds from Saudi Arabia for its Islamic study program, The Vice Chancellor of the university then try to defend it by quoting from Wikipedia without attributing the source.


http://www.abc.net.au/rn/religionreport/stories/2008/2231782.htm

234. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #173860 by Bonzai on May 1, 2008 at 9:52 am

Thank you, Mitchell!

235. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #173853 by Bonzai on May 1, 2008 at 9:43 am

Anna

Just because the incentive isn't supernatural or metaphysical doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

I didn't say there was no incentive, Did I?

I actually gave some, all of which are "secular", it therefore is not right to say that the Karmakazis were motivated by "religion" in the sense most people here, including Steve, use the word "religion".

EDIT: It is therefore wrong for Steve to barge in, gun blazing, to accuse me of being apologetic to religion. Yes, I was pissed off.

236. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #173843 by Bonzai on May 1, 2008 at 9:35 am

Al,

I don't necessarily insist that there is a very cut and dry line between religiously induced fanaticism and other kinds.

But in context

1) religion is singled out on this site. Almost everyone assumes that it has a special meaning here, including Dawkins and Steve . I am sure Steve used religion in a very narrow sense in our debate above.


2) Words have meanings. As long as you make that distinction in (1), then it would be wrong to attribute the Karnmakazie and the Tamil Tigers to "religion"

Hope I made myself clear. I think you're barking up the wrong tree,.

237. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #173832 by Bonzai on May 1, 2008 at 9:26 am

Irate

I edited it, I meant to say "metaphysical". People do "martyrdom" for all kinds of secular movements, some of them even noble: resistance, revolutions, liberations etc.

As I said there are many reasons why people would sacrifice their lives in suicide missions. It doesn't have to do with any supernatural belief or even any ideology except very loosely, Suicide missions don't have to be very dramatic. Taking on an assassination mission knowing that you will be killed in the process would be an example, or using yourself as a life target to distract the enemies and waste their ammunitions like many Russians did during the defence of Stalingrad.

238. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #173814 by Bonzai on May 1, 2008 at 9:08 am

Your problem is that you hold religion is if it is some special kind of belief.

No, this is not my problem. To the extent that it is a problem, it is the problem of many people here including Dawkins. Religion is singled out here.

I can also make a finer point to distinguish "belief" in a dictionary sense as in holding on to some metaphysical principle or just conditioning, that is often unconscious. I don't think the Tamil tigers and the Kamakarzis have any metaphysical doctrine that encourages suicide attacks, which is unlike religiously motivated martyrdom say in certain sects of Islam.

It is misleading to label any irrational impulse "religious" since religion is a special kind of irrationality.

EDIT I am sure that Steve used "religion" in a very narrow sense here. If he were talking about some general "belief in belief" he would have said so.

239. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #173796 by Bonzai on May 1, 2008 at 8:50 am

AL

Bonzai seems tied to certain ideas. His vigorous defense of a general idea of socialism (of course the metaphysical unimplemented version) was a clue

Excuse me? Where did I defend socialism, let a lone rigorously? Pointing out you misunderstood the concept is not "defence" by my understanding.

On the other hand, your rigourous defence of a libertarian version of Capitalism (unimplemented because it is not implementable) was a clue,--to whatever you try to allude to.

Yes, Steve makes many good points on a lot of topics, but he was simply wrong about the Kamakarzi pilots and the nature of suicide attacks in general (his rather simplistic analysis may only be valid for Muslim suicide bombers who put wet towels around their penises) It is dogmatism for him to continue sticking to it without any argument other than short brush off like "No, it isn't".

240. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #173612 by Bonzai on May 1, 2008 at 12:14 am

Hey, wonder what do you aussies think about this

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/religionreport/stories/2008/2231782.htm

Australian university soliciting money from Saudi Arabia for its Islamic study program.

241. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #173406 by Bonzai on April 30, 2008 at 6:21 pm

Titania

I am still confused because you seemed to indicate that you believe in the OT god and Jesus, yet there may be some third entity responsible for creation of the universe.

Sorry to butt in. Perhaps he meant "believe" in a more open ended and less definitive way than the dictionary definition of the word "belief" may suggest? I have that impression talking to many "believers".

242. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #173400 by Bonzai on April 30, 2008 at 6:08 pm

Dick

I love Jesus, he was a great man, even if he didn't exist, we could still learn from Jesus as a man, mythical man at the very least.

Actually Dawkins (the real one) himself agrees with that idea. He wrote an article called "atheists for Jesus" I think.

243. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #173395 by Bonzai on April 30, 2008 at 6:02 pm

Brian

I think anybody who keeps superfluous metaphysical suppositions out of their thinking and applies the scientific method can do good science.

Actually, doing good science is like being a detective of patterns. It requires insights, experience and yes, talents. "Applying the scientific method" is not like following a manual. The general philosophy about the scientific method though, is actually quite trivial even though philosophers write a big deal about it.

Good scientists always keep their personal metaphysical suppositions out of the science. But it doesn't mean these supposition cannot play a role in motivating them to look at problems in certain way, or pick certain problems to work on.

It is not necessary for a scientist to be free of all metaphysical supposition to do good science, as long as he compartmentalize them appropriately. Newton was probably one of the greatest scientific genius, yet he was also a loony in many ways beside his religious belief.

244. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #173380 by Bonzai on April 30, 2008 at 5:30 pm

Dick

it dawned upon me that Ben Stein is Jewish. Jews don't believe in Jesus, so why is the article titled "Lying for Jesus"?

Interesting observation.

Maybe Ben Stein is a Jew for Jesus.

245. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #173367 by Bonzai on April 30, 2008 at 5:08 pm

I am fed up with ID nuts posting the same old nonsense, and religious sympathisers like Bonzai posting the same old apologetics.

So now the Stalinists have declared me a counter revolutionary and being in bed with the enemies?

246. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #173363 by Bonzai on April 30, 2008 at 5:02 pm

Cartomancer

The term Ki (Chi in chinese - energy or life force), which is often taken to be a term for supernatural magical force by western commentators, applies as much to the flow of blood or muscular force and the blowing of the winds as it does to the movements of dragons and the powers of gods

It is very perceptive for you to notice that. Actually "chi" is a very loose term and Chinese medicine is not intended to be an explanatory model like Western medical theories.

As a physiological model this "chi" business is nonsense, except most practitioners of Chinese medicine don't really give it the same epistemological status that Western commentators assume they do. It is very loose and almost allegorical.

It is very difficult to explain that to most Westerners.

247. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #173350 by Bonzai on April 30, 2008 at 4:53 pm

Mphil

Whether religion or nationalism (I think it's similar to Germany, where it was certainly nationalism - and racism - that got supported by religion), I think the they both have the same underlying problem - both nationalism and religion are based on not-epistemically-justified assumptions, about worship and sacrifice, about "knowing" certain objective moral values and "knowing" that one is doing a religious or quasi-religious duty, about dogma

Yes, I agree. But if you use "religion" in a very broad sense to just mean any dogmatic system, it make the word to flexible to have any specific meaning.

Also, tribalism is not a epistemological issue. Religion often provides the justifications, but it is not the only way. Often it doesn't even need justification.

248. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #173349 by Bonzai on April 30, 2008 at 4:45 pm

Cartomancer,

That is a good point about obedience.That is tied in with "honour" The idea of obedience being a high virtue didn't have anything to do with supernatural beliefs.

249. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #173344 by Bonzai on April 30, 2008 at 4:39 pm

I have a fixation on understanding motivation

This is one thing that you definitely don't understand. When it comes to what make people do things your posts read like bumper sticker slogans.

You seem to have a fixation on defending religion.

How exactly is it "defending religion" by showing a more nuanced picture rather than assuming, without evidence that "religion" is the culprit even when there are better explanations that fit the data?

No, it isn't. Religion was an utterly fundamental part of their lives, of their families. Their survival after death was not about rewards in the afterlife.

This is what you want to believe. They didn't see it that way. If people basically killed themselves for very concrete reasons such as those they described in their letters to their families, "religion" is just a label without conveying ANY substance.

250. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #173332 by Bonzai on April 30, 2008 at 4:16 pm

As usual, you present false dichotomies.

As usual, you present a grossly simplified and misleading caricature in order to validate your fixation on religion

No. But he was the leader of their Shinto religion, which states that those who die become family spirits. Students of Shinto were supposed to "offer themselves courageously to the state".

The Kamilkazi pilots belonged to the elite units in the Japanese imperial air force. They enjoyed many privileges and were worshiped by their peers.

There are anthologies of letters and diary entries of kamilkazie pilots before their suicide missions. They talked about family honour, loyalty to the fatherland and the Emperor and not letting others down, but almost never about any expected rewards in the afterlife. These are all secular reasons.

At certain levels, their motivations to sacrifice their lives for a higher cause was not very different from atheist Soviets who died like flies in the defence of Stalingrad knowing before almost certainly that they wouldn't return. Do you know that many Russians went to the front even without guns? The idea was to be live targets so that the Germans would use up their ammunitions.

This is very different from people who kill themselves because of supernatural beliefs and the supposed rewards in heaven.

There are many reason other than religion why people would choose to die.