Comments by j.mills

301. All aboard the atheist bus campaign

Comment #268153 by j.mills on October 21, 2008 at 1:08 pm

Oolon Colluphid is on there - his comment was "Who is this God person anyway?" Love it!

302. All aboard the atheist bus campaign

Comment #268142 by j.mills on October 21, 2008 at 12:55 pm

Bunged 'em GBP100. Delighted to see that someone donated GBP666! :)

I love it that you just hit 'Refresh' and the total goes up! And the donor's names and comments are fun, such as the one from God: "Just to show I can suffer criticism!"

303. Bill Heine interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #267582 by j.mills on October 20, 2008 at 6:33 pm

Well, it's a funny thing, Layla, this faith business, isn't it? I would have thought that if you truly believed there was a god, and heaven and hell and judgement and all that, there could be nothing more important in your life than finding out what your god wants from you. Yet many theists - Muslim, Christian, whatever - seem startlingly ignorant of the details of their religion and have certainly never read their scriptures (even if, in the case of Islam, they may know them by heart!).

304. Bill Heine interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #267570 by j.mills on October 20, 2008 at 5:48 pm

Yeah, I don't think RD fielded that one very well on this occasion. Better to point out that natural selection is an explanation of how life works, not a prescription for human action. The Nazis' self-justifications were simply false. (Shame god was busy that day, really.)

305. The soul? It may all be in your mind

Comment #267566 by j.mills on October 20, 2008 at 5:39 pm

I think we'd do well to avoid using the word 'soul' altogether, just as a great deal of argument would have been avoided if Einstein hadn't used the word 'god'. 'Mind' or 'consciousness' describe what we're talking about.

Brevity is the consciousness of wit. Marvin Gaye was a great consciousness singer. Hmm, well, maybe there are some contexts where it's okay...

306. The soul? It may all be in your mind

Comment #267432 by j.mills on October 20, 2008 at 2:52 pm

Can't see the theists being too pleased to have this guy's 'permission' to go on believing in gods while he cheerfully tosses out their cherished notions of eternal souls. Not that he's wrong, but I'm guessing the religiosites will consider themselves not just contradicted but also patronised.

307. Death for apostasy?

Comment #267426 by j.mills on October 20, 2008 at 2:44 pm

Quoting godspot's citation:

I wrote to President Carter: We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

I watched Charlie Wilson's War recently, interesting movie, Tom Hanks and all. I recognise this is hardly primary source material :) but the thrust was that the initial US funding of the Mujaheedin was token - this would not have been a 10-year war if yer man Wilson hadn't swung the administration into throwing lots more money at the problem. The film opens with a quote from Wilson that concludes: "We fucked up the end game" - ie. once the Soviets disappeared, the US went home and left a ravaged country with a power vacuum.

Well, even if that didn't contribute to the rise of the Taliban (which seems unlikely), it was clearly a poor exit strategy - and the lesson didn't seem to have been learned when it was Iraq's turn... But there are whole other forums for this!

308. Death for apostasy?

Comment #266863 by j.mills on October 19, 2008 at 7:29 pm

Reading these last few posts is like witnessing the birth of an atheist 'wedge' document...

309. Death for apostasy?

Comment #266762 by j.mills on October 19, 2008 at 4:28 pm

Wait a minute. It wasn't? :o

310. Convert or we will kill you, Hindu lynch mobs tell fleeing Christians

Comment #266628 by j.mills on October 19, 2008 at 12:47 pm

Surely, joshuaslocum, the post from 82abhilash is not intended to "justify or mitigate this horrendous evil", only to criticise its being reported in isolation. Nobody here would suggest that treating people this way is acceptable under any circumstances - seems to me that 82abhilash wants to make us aware that there is MORE bad shit happening, not pretend that this is LESS than it appears.

311. Death for apostasy?

Comment #266623 by j.mills on October 19, 2008 at 12:38 pm

Janus:

Therefore the moderate Muslim's only choice is to lie

- which is surely unIslamic! :)

I think I see what you're saying, that for 'moderate' Muslims to condemn the 'death for apostates' law is to invite its application to themselves. However, Nesrine Malik's claim is that that threat is "rarely invoked", so why would she be worried?

If you're right that she can't say what she might think, then she has taken refuge in hypocrisy. If you're wrong, and she means what she says (that there is no danger in speaking out), then we in turn would be right to criticise her for not condemning the death sentences unequivocally.

But I fear I'm verging on sophistry! I'll shut up.

312. Convert or we will kill you, Hindu lynch mobs tell fleeing Christians

Comment #266615 by j.mills on October 19, 2008 at 12:24 pm

See, this is what I don't get:

'I'm totally broken,' she said. 'I have always been a Christian. Inside I am still praying for Jesus to give me peace and to take me out of this situation.'

The Hindus must know that they can't make someone change their beliefs like that (short of the skills of 1984's O'Brien), they can only make Christians "go through the motions of religious observance" (to nick a phrase from a nearby thread). You can't suddenly 'decide' to believe in 330 million gods plus one per human being. (I read that number on the Internet, so it must be true...)

So really this is about using religion to impose authority. In this context, religion is just a powerful labelling system for collective punishment and routine scapegoating:

He blamed the Christians for taking the jobs of Hindus

Of course, that is still a Bad Thing. But the obvious hollowness of the conversions shows how little "faith" is actually involved in this picture.

313. Death for apostasy?

Comment #266603 by j.mills on October 19, 2008 at 12:06 pm

Wait a tic. What do we want this writer to do? If we want her to condemn the death penalty for apostasy, we are asking her to become a koranic cherry-picker - a 'C of E Muslim', as it were. And we frequently pounce on cherry-pickers just as we do on fundamentalists.

Perhaps our attitude should be: if you DON'T believe in the tenets of your religion, then you are not in fact a Muslim yourself. Comes back to that True Scotsman business again.

314. Free to Think for Themselves

Comment #266586 by j.mills on October 19, 2008 at 11:21 am

Hmm. Whilst I can see a case for ensuring arbitration is non-discriminatory, it sounds like current law can't prevent this form of arbitration. Maybe then there should be an effort (publicity campaign?) to prevent people (particularly women) from being pressured into accepting the arbitration in the first place, and proactive investigation leading to prosecution where such pressure has been applied. (Harrassment? Threatening behaviour? Perverting the course of justice?)

315. God is not the enemy of reason

Comment #266305 by j.mills on October 18, 2008 at 3:31 pm

Strawmen, distortions, misrepresentations, lies, caricatures, howlers and Melanie Phillips. It's a perfect parody, except that it's not a parody.

And of course the usual failure to address at all whether any religion is true. Yet for some reason, Judaism and Christianity are "good" and Islam, paganism and witchcraft are "bad". Go figure.

316. From Science Fiction to Science Fact

Comment #266297 by j.mills on October 18, 2008 at 3:09 pm

From the Bigfoot link:

the organization essentially seeks to resolve the mystery surrounding the bigfoot phenomenon, that is, to derive conclusive documentation of the species' existence. This goal is pursued through the proactive collection of empirical data and physical evidence from the field and by means of activities designed to promote an awareness and understanding of the nature and origin of the evidence.

So they might be wild optimists (who wouldn't like Bigfoot to be real?), but they also know what they need to do to convince. Let 'em alone, it's not like mainstream biology is taking any interest (though surprising new species are discovered every year).

decius said:

these myths generally involve creatures who are humanoid

Hmm. Nessie? Mkole-Membe? The Mongolian death-worm? (Gotta love that one!) Cryptozoologists go after all kinds of weird and unlikely stuff and thereby make the world all the more colourful. But in your list, only Bigfoot is crypozoological.

I recently saw a poster for the original King Kong and Fay Wray in his left hand was as big as the biplane in his right. So clearly he operates in a variable spatial topology of his own. Or the artist was crap.

317. Video Game Pulled Due to Qur'an Quotes

Comment #266291 by j.mills on October 18, 2008 at 2:50 pm

Exsqueeze me? Is the koran still under copyright after 13 centuries? We keep going round this track, don't we? They can just NOT BUY THE GAME.

We would not see a game withdrawn for featuring verses from the bible or the upanishads. The argument is the same but the ferocity of the complainants is different.

318. From Science Fiction to Science Fact

Comment #265961 by j.mills on October 17, 2008 at 5:15 pm

I'm kinda with Steve. I read Kaku's Hyperspace and came away more exasperated than enlightened. It's not quite like the Wells/Verne/Star Trek analogy because we're talking about books presented as fact, not fiction.

There's plenty of fascinating stuff to write about in the well-understood arena, and if instead you're going to write speculation, you should clearly present it as speculation.

319. Faith Attack

Comment #265921 by j.mills on October 17, 2008 at 2:41 pm

Astounding that someone who can construct a sentence could construct such an 'argument' as this article! Jaw-dropping stuff.

Am I the only one who wonders how strong the 'faith' of geezers like this really is, if they're so ready to make common cause with other, entirely incompatible religions against those demonic atheists? Surely if you really believed that you had the right of it, you would be just as opposed to other faiths as to meanies like Dawkins. It's desperate and incoherent stuff.

320. Legal case against God dismissed

Comment #265444 by j.mills on October 16, 2008 at 6:21 pm

had an experience he was just not willing to let go.

...but obviously wished someone else would. :)

321. Legal case against God dismissed

Comment #265425 by j.mills on October 16, 2008 at 5:20 pm

amalthea said:

there's no way God could ever be a woman

Proof of this can be seen in the bible's only joke, Deut. 25, 11-12.

322. The Joke's on Him: Bill Maher could use a lesson in civility from Michael Moore

Comment #265390 by j.mills on October 16, 2008 at 3:28 pm

faith--the most powerful and meaningful force in the history of human existence

Uh-huh. I see.

Yet another theist defence that avoids entirely the question of whether gods exist.

323. Legal case against God dismissed

Comment #265386 by j.mills on October 16, 2008 at 3:17 pm

happinessiseasy said:

So if a homeless guy breaks into my house and steals something, I can't press charges because he has no home address?

Judge said you have to have access to the defendant. If you can find the homeless guy, you can sue him. If you can find god...

But there are precedents of persons being tried in absentia. Probably the judge just wants nothing to do with this! How would you swear god in?

324. Ecological Flea

Comment #264495 by j.mills on October 14, 2008 at 2:14 pm

From bluebird's link:

...provides a theoretical structure for spirituality, supported by up-to-date scientific theory and experimental evidence drawn from physics, biology, neuro-endocrine chemistry and developmental genetics. It places these in a context that examines the nature of reality, perception, shamanistic experience and intuition and is further underpinned by strong experimental data that validates psychic detection, psychokinesis, plant communication and homeopathic medicine.

...There is also an overarching philosophical view that presents a fresh view of how human beings understand what is "real", giving a new and healthy context for approaches to live issues such as ecology, economy and socio-political attitudes, as well as exposing the weaknesses in scientific methodology which have caused it to ignore and dismiss important data.

...The picture that emerges brings scientific and spiritual views of the world into alignment and ends a long-term conflict which has damaged both, and which has caused many people to feel they must choose between two worlds. The resolution brings connectedness and empowerment, within an inspiring new view of who we all truly are.

So quite a book overall. We can expect it to be a huge bestseller which radically changes the paradigm in just about all fields of study. I'll pick up a copy when the paperback is at number one...

325. The Retirement of Richard Dawkins: Reflections on a Stewardship

Comment #264385 by j.mills on October 14, 2008 at 10:28 am

Hmm. I think that article's a little overly pessimistic. Certainly I understand more about science thanks to RD (though not necessarily due to his activities in this post), and I think I am a member of the public. Even if you can't interest or educate everyone, you can still do some good.

(Who's next for the Professorship, anyone know?)

326. Why Evolution is True

Comment #264015 by j.mills on October 13, 2008 at 1:53 pm

I'd have been happier with Why Evolution Is Real...

327. Religion vs science: can the divide between God and rationality be reconciled?

Comment #263555 by j.mills on October 11, 2008 at 5:29 pm

Comment 13, aquilacane:

Unicornology is in it's infancy, and we really need to focus on what we don't know, not what we do.

Alas, it is a very difficult subject to research, as apparently unicorns can only be approached by virgins...

A unicorn met with a virgin.
They talked about their futures mergin'.
One look at his horn
And her mind filled with porn.
She mounted without further urgin'!

328. Religion vs science: can the divide between God and rationality be reconciled?

Comment #263508 by j.mills on October 11, 2008 at 2:47 pm

where there appears to be a conflict between demonstrated knowledge and a literal reading of the bible then the scriptures should be interpreted metaphorically.

Anyone know what pi=3 is a metaphor for?

The writer's making a case for NOMA, but nowhere in this article is there any attempt (by writer or quotees) to address the question: do gods exist? It's the only one that matters. A clear proof from any religion would end the debate forever.

329. Leading geneticist Steve Jones says human evolution is over

Comment #261853 by j.mills on October 7, 2008 at 2:06 pm

I suppose there are pressures 'the other way' too: lizards in caves evolve away their eyes because they're a waste of resources. Now that we use technology to keep ourselves alive and reproducing, maybe there are biological features that are no longer as advantageous as they were.

For example, it's much remarked upon that male fertility in the West has declined; perhaps artificial insemination is acting against the 'natural' weeding out of men with low fertility.

By this reasoning we could be becoming less 'fit' - if we were suddenly removed from our built environment.

330. Leading geneticist Steve Jones says human evolution is over

Comment #261768 by j.mills on October 7, 2008 at 10:47 am

notsobad said:

Can some vegan explain to me what is wrong with honey?
Veganism sounds like dogma to me.

Not so much dogma as doing the best we can, "as far as is possible and practical". People are vegan for many reasons (environment, health, weight, money), but mostly because of a concern to prevent unnecessary suffering and deaths. The simpler the organism, the less obvious it is that it's capable of suffering; but since eliminating honey from one's diet is trivially easy, why not give 'em the benefit of the doubt?

Follow the link if interested:

http://www.vegansociety.com/images/Honey.pdf

331. Dying of the Light

Comment #261597 by j.mills on October 7, 2008 at 5:39 am

JD Cherry said:

I guess I'd better start saving now to get my head frozen.

? Walt Disney had his head frozen. If we smashed it up with a hammer today, how would he be any the wiser?

Relax and enjoy the ride! :)

332. The rival to the Bible

Comment #261594 by j.mills on October 7, 2008 at 5:34 am

I think you're all being very mean, casting aspersions and jeering like this. Didn't Jesus say, let him who is without sin cast the first -

Oh hang on, no he didn't...

333. Leading geneticist Steve Jones says human evolution is over

Comment #261580 by j.mills on October 7, 2008 at 4:50 am

My guess is that the vast human population would mean that it would now take many thousands of years for an advantageous gene to spread throughout, if it ever did. We would need bottlenecks to permit anything radical to happen.

I don't buy Jones' claim about older fathers. If anything that's easier now. (A 33-year-old female friend of mine has a 75-year-old boyfriend.) Siring children on hundreds of women is a perk of dictatorship and aristocracy that (Ridley argues in The Red Queen) was a recent historical aberration. 'Loose' monogamy has always been the norm, even in societies where polygamy is permitted.

Vaal said:

Who knows what our ancestors will be like when they are living as Alpha Centaurians or Vegans?

Some of us are already living as vegans. Among our number, we observe reduced rates of cancer, heart disease, arthritis, eczema, gallstones, bowel disorders, high blood pressure, asthma, obesity and 50-odd diseases associated with free-radicals in the bloodstream. We also note an increase in general smugness. :)

334. Dying of the Light

Comment #261296 by j.mills on October 6, 2008 at 4:23 pm

I don't know what it is with this fearing death lark (see Barnes' loopy dreams). Sure, nobody wants the kind of suffering and embuggerance in dying that geechie bravely mentions, but I think it's a category error to even think of death as an 'experience'. It's the end of experiencing.

I enjoyed Barnes' Flaubert's Parrot in an unenthusiastic sort of way, but this article reminds me of the saying: "Everyone has a good book inside them. Which is a very good place for it."

335. Dawkins: a theologian's perspective

Comment #261276 by j.mills on October 6, 2008 at 3:40 pm

we are not to expect to see the perfect society before God brings it about.

Good news, folks! We can all stop trying, it's out of our hands.

I am self-centered, thoughtless, loveless and need to change. And I need to find a way to do that.

At last something to agree with...

The God of the Bible is not interested in whether we happen to entertain the opinion that he exists nor not.

Wahey! Goodbye Pascal's Wager. This is your Atheists Get Out Of Hell Free card.

Jesus Christ is the exact image of God, and that the point of life is to let God transform us to be like him.

Wait, didn't I read somewhere recently that "Christians believe that we are made in the image of God" already? So how come we need 'transforming' to be the 'exact' image? "What! Did the hand then of the potter shake?" (Khayyam)

faith involves personal risk, and only those prepared to take that risk can find God.

The only 'risk' I can see is ridicule, and "Ridicule is nothing to be scared of". (Ant) It's not like atheists burn theists at the stake...

God hides himself in our world...

He is not obvious, but waits to be found,,,

God is searching for us...

Poor way of going about things, this. He's been stuck in a closet playing Sardines for 13.7 billion years now. He must be sulking 'cos noone's found him yet...

...and is there to be found but only by those who risk everything to do so.

Again with the risk. What exactly did you 'risk', Mr Tomlin? Your reputation? You've kinda lost that anyway.

Those who do find him find love, adventure and satisfaction beyond what they imagined possible.

Does this guy strike you as someone drenched in unimaginable love, adventure and satisfaction? F*ck me.

Honestly. Post after post of jeering. Look what he's made me stoop to! :)

336. Dawkins: a theologian's perspective

Comment #261270 by j.mills on October 6, 2008 at 3:24 pm

human beings are such that they are likely to take any idea, however good or bad, and turn it into an excuse for doing violence to each other.

And this is the product of god's 'intelligent design', is it? Still, didn't I hear that Christians believe that we are made in the image of God?

Christians believe that we are made in the image of God, capable of amazing acts of love, compassion, mercy and grace. yet we are also deeply flawed, fragile and fallen, equally capable of acts of terrible evil.

Oh, gottit now. All the nasty bits weren't made in the image of god. Uh-huh. [Columbo-like pause.] So, er, where did those bits come from then? Were they an 'accident'?

337. Dawkins: a theologian's perspective

Comment #261267 by j.mills on October 6, 2008 at 3:16 pm

The character of Jesus reflects the core character of the God of the Old Testament - patiently kind, endlessly loving, achingly compassionate,

Yes, folks, that's what he said. I know, I know...

...fiercely loyal.

To the Israelites. And f*ck everybody else. This guy Tomlin is a disgrace.

God desires us to worship him not because he is some insecure despot who demands that we cravenly bow down before him, but because for us to worship a God who is in himself love is in fact the best thing we can do.

Knows a lot about god though. Clearly an expert. Now, if he would only let us in on how he knows, his work would be over...

338. Dawkins: a theologian's perspective

Comment #261262 by j.mills on October 6, 2008 at 3:05 pm

For Dawkins, love is purely an accident.

For Christians, it is the very centre of all that we are.

At what point did natural selection morph into 'accident' again?

Dawkins, of course, if ever he senses anything like 'love' arising in his materialist mind, instantly quashes it for the accidental nonsense it is...

At the end of the day there is a simple choice to be made. Is love a 'misfiring instinct', an accidental by-product of evolution, and a thinly veiled strategy for personal or genetic survival? Or is it actually the centre of reality; the reason why we are here?

This 'simple choice' could be more succinctly phrased as: what do I really really wish was true?

339. Dawkins: a theologian's perspective

Comment #261257 by j.mills on October 6, 2008 at 3:00 pm

(Pardon me, I'm going through this bit by eye-rolling bit.)

However, who is to say whether religion is a virus or whether Dawkins' own ideas are a virus which is spreading in the same way?

Memes spread regardless of their utility, that's the whole point. Dawkins' ideas certainly are viruses, to whatever extent the memes metaphor holds, but that doesn't make them bad. The success of the spread of religion is not itself an argument against it, nor is it presented as one. Strawman.

There is also of course no independent, objective proof of the existence of 'memes'. It is really a metaphor he is using rather than a scientifically proven fact.

This is rather strange as he accuses Christians of basing their faith upon things that are not proven, and so it is a little bit rich to see him arguing so strongly for such an idea himself.

Tomlin has just finished pointing out that Dawkins is not arguing for it strongly; and offering a useful metaphor hedged with caution is a far cry from claiming to know god. Jeebus, this guy's awful.

340. Dawkins: a theologian's perspective

Comment #261248 by j.mills on October 6, 2008 at 2:52 pm

Evolutionary process would normally expect a new ability to have appeared one individual first: however, it is impossible for language to be individual - it has to involve at least two people who converse together.

I know everyone's already torn that one down, but honestly, it's just such BOLLOCKS, isn't it? *Sigh* (mmurray #87 - that's hilarious!)

but why were those elements here in the first place?

The Big Bang is of course one possible solution to this argument, but even that does not provide an answer because it still leaves open the question why there was something to go 'bang' in the first place?

This is a common misuse of the word "why" to imply there must be a purpose, when the most that is called for is a cause. By the same 'reasoning', why wouldn't there be something to go bang?

341. Dawkins: a theologian's perspective

Comment #261244 by j.mills on October 6, 2008 at 2:48 pm

countless people profess to an experience of something beyond the material or the natural which the naturalist can always try to explain away, but finds it hard to do so because of the sheer mass of such testimony.

I dare say "countless people profess to an experience of" the millions of gods in the Hindu pantheon, and others the experience of Buddha-nature. Yet strangely these reported experiences do not sway Mr Tomlin from his Christian certainties.

342. Dawkins: a theologian's perspective

Comment #261217 by j.mills on October 6, 2008 at 2:30 pm

They will always therefore seem odd, inexplicable and disputable.

God usually achieves his purposes indirectly, through human agency. Particular people in the Bible or Christian history are normally the agents of miracles, whether Moses parting of the Red Sea, Jesus raising the dead, or Christian saints performing healings.

Notice how he slips from claiming that miracles are 'disputable' (ie. look like they could be 'natural' events) to parting the Red Sea? From attributing this to Moses to claiming that all miracles are 'mediated' by people and therefore undetectable? Are we supposed to imagine that the Israelites and Egyptians observed the sea rolling back on Moses' command and 'disputed' whether it was a miracle?

This is not just sophistry, it's demeaning sophistry. It ought to be beneath any academic.

343. Dawkins: a theologian's perspective

Comment #261207 by j.mills on October 6, 2008 at 2:24 pm

On the language thing, I read in Biological Exuberance (brill book) that the gleefully oversexed bonobos use about 20 hand signals to encourage and instruct each other during sex. Maybe the evolution of language didn't start with vocalisation anyway.

344. New Rules for Sarah Palin and Her Witchdoctor

Comment #260647 by j.mills on October 5, 2008 at 7:50 pm

defaithed said:

Not meaning to pick a fight, good sir...

Ach, I just didn't like his manner. And those US live audiences guffawing at his every word detract from rather than add to the fun. I was similarly irked when I saw one of Michael Moore's TV shows; it seems to be in the physics of yankee TV. Just ignore me.

345. Strippers, armadillos inspire Ig Nobel winners

Comment #260551 by j.mills on October 5, 2008 at 4:50 pm

Ah! So this would be why those ladies on the Internet put those soda bottles up their, umm...

I'll get my coat.

346. Opiate of the masses - and evolutionary aid

Comment #260434 by j.mills on October 5, 2008 at 2:01 pm

jeepyjay said:

How could one have a society that doesn't distinguish between young and old (to take one example)? This is not something that needed to "evolve".

I'm just coming to the end of Matt Ridley's The Red Queen. In highlighting the problems to be solved in discussing sex and human nature, he points out that men of all ages go for young women the world over; but male chimps will mate with any willing female irrespective of her age. Our perception and valuation of young and old is not necessarily common to other species, and may therefore be adaptive.

347. Beetles get by with a little help from their friends

Comment #260384 by j.mills on October 5, 2008 at 12:33 pm

Foolish beetle! Why not learn to love the fast-growing fungus instead?! :)

(Would it hurt to tell us the name of the beetle? Sheesh.)

348. New Rules for Sarah Palin and Her Witchdoctor

Comment #260382 by j.mills on October 5, 2008 at 12:28 pm

Yuck. Not that he's wrong, but he's smug and laughs at his own jokes, and like much American TV, he's buoyed up by an audience of irritating sycophants.

349. Opiate of the masses - and evolutionary aid

Comment #260378 by j.mills on October 5, 2008 at 12:19 pm

BucketChemist said:

The comparison you make between the bible and Lord of the Rings; that the only difference is that millions believe the first to be true; is the key point, although I would say that the word 'true' needs more careful consideration. I would argue that stories don't need to be true to be important or to act as foundational in peoples lives.

Theists generally do not see their religious frameworks as (to nick a phrase from Ursula Le Guin) "a working metaphor". Religion may help them structure their life-narratives, but always contingent upon them clinging on to their faith in the teeth of reason. Few theists would be happy to receive our 'permission' to persist in what we regard as their comfortable delusion, because it makes for a quiet life!

350. Seeing Red and Blue Can Divide a Species - of Fish

Comment #260106 by j.mills on October 4, 2008 at 4:21 pm

Point taken that it's an imperfect isolation. But although the colour business might lead to speciation, it's still a spatial separation that's led to the colour thing. Seems like they're describing the effects of speciation as if they were the cause.