301. Young, British Muslims 'getting more radical'

Comment #20173 by Janus on January 31, 2007 at 6:03 pm

For those who don't feel like downloading the above pdf file...







"One of the benefits of modern society is the freedom to criticise other people's religious or political views, even when it causes offence"

Agree: 37%
Disagree: 57%


"If I could choose, I would prefer to live in Britain under Sharia law rather than British law".

Agree: 28%
Disagree: 59%


"The following is a list of laws that are defined in most scholarly interpretations of Sharia law. Please say if you personally agree or
disagree with each law mentioned?"

That a Muslim woman may not marry a non-Muslim.
Agree: 51%
Disagree: 43%

That a Muslim woman cannot marry without the consent of her guardian
Agree: 43%
Disagree: 51%

That a Muslim male may have up to four wives, and a Muslim female is allowed only one husband
Agree: 46%
Disagree: 48%

That Muslim conversion to another religion is forbidden and punishable by death
Agree: 31%
Disagree: 57%

That homosexuality is wrong and should be illegal
Agree: 61%
Disagree: 30%


"Some Islamic scholars have called for a major reinterpretation of Sharia law to reflect modern ideas about human rights, equality for women
and tolerance of religious conversion. Other Islamic scholars disagree with this view and say that Sharia law is absolute and should not be
reinterpreted to fit in with western values. Which of these views is closest to your own opinion?"

Should be reinterpreted: 45%
Should NOT be: 39%

302. James Randi on Larry King Live

Comment #19953 by Janus on January 30, 2007 at 8:56 pm

Shine,

I don't understand, what kind of "cards" are you talking about?

Btw, kudos for spelling "coup de grâce" correctly. :)

303. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #19867 by Janus on January 30, 2007 at 11:23 am

Sam has replied once again:

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/209/story_20904_4.html


It seems a very weak reply to me. I think Sam would have been better off directly debunking Sullivan's statement that history and mathematics are comparable to religious faith, instead of doing it in such a roundabout (and rather vague) way. The only good part is Sam's question to Sullivan at the very end.

304. Young, British Muslims 'getting more radical'

Comment #19782 by Janus on January 29, 2007 at 11:09 pm

That sounds nice in theory, but what happens when the religious nuts get control of the school board? They'll say, "Children have the right not to be indoctrinated into the falsehood of evolution."

That's similar to what creationists said in the US not so long ago, but fortunately secularists fought and defeated them. That battle wasn't won by invoking laws that defend everyone's viewpoints, it was won by showing the judge that evolution is a fact, and that ID/creationism is bullshit.

A good rule of thumb is to advocate only the kinds of laws you'd still want in place if your political opponents were in charge.

The law I want in place would prevent blatant falsehoods (or faith-based beliefs, if you want to call them that) from being taught to children. It would still work in favor of science, reason, and secularism even if religious nuts were in charge; unless of course they had so much power that they could interpret the laws however they liked, but then we'd have lost the war anyway. Until this happens, defending truth with evidence still seems to work most of the time, as it did in Dover.

What's the difference between parents teaching their kids creationism, and parents hiring a school to teach their kids creationism?

The former can't be prevented, the latter can. Also, the former is much more likely to lead to a slippery slope than the latter.

To shut down schools for teaching incorrect ideas is blatant censorship;

Not at all. Censorship would be to stop religious people from expressing their beliefs. What I'm talking about is not mere speech, it's education of children. The younger children are, the more vulnerable they are to indoctrination, unlike adults, and they should therefore be protected against it (as much as they can be, anyway).

who do you think would be the first ones to get prosecuted for teaching children dangerous ideas?

Muslims, most likely. But that's irrelevant, I didn't say anything about dangerous ideas, I only mentioned _false_ ideas.

305. Young, British Muslims 'getting more radical'

Comment #19779 by Janus on January 29, 2007 at 10:35 pm

Baz Y,

you're an idiot.

Take a second look at the measures I have stated I _would_ support, and try telling me why there's anything immoral about them.

306. Young, British Muslims 'getting more radical'

Comment #19778 by Janus on January 29, 2007 at 10:32 pm

Excellent post, JDAM. Wish I'd written it. :P


nine9s:
I'm Canadian, not British, but what I'm talking about is abolishing faith schools. I doubt it would be necessary to shut down most of them. I simply want them to be like regular schools. They should stop teaching their religious beliefs, and they shouldn't have the right to decide which children are allowed in on the basis of religion.

I don't think it's such a scandalous idea. It can be argued that parents have the right to teach their children whatever they like, but children also have the right not to be indoctrinated to believe falsehoods; children don't only have a right to an education, they have a right to a _good_ education.

Of course, we can't (and shouldn't, except perhaps in extreme cases) regulate what parents teach their children at home, but at least we can make sure they're exposed to reality when they're at school.

307. Blasphemy Challenge on FOX

Comment #19730 by Janus on January 29, 2007 at 3:27 pm

I thought Flemming did a wonderful job. It can be hard to cut through the BS and reply cogently, as he did. I could have done slightly better, but only if I'd had a few minutes to think about it and write something down. ;)

Oh, and the amused grin at the end when the idiot told him, "I hope you turn around." was the best.

So, props!

308. Young, British Muslims 'getting more radical'

Comment #19683 by Janus on January 29, 2007 at 8:42 am

Janus - since I'm one of those atheists you can't understand - please explain.

What is there to explain? I'm sure you know what most Muslims believe, you know what's written in the Qur'an. Unlike Christianity, Islam hasn't gone through the Enlightenment. The percentage of 'fundamentalist' Muslims is much greater in Islam than that of fundamentalist Christians in Christianity.

Given that most Muslims live (or lived until recently, or were brought up by parents who recently lived) in theocracies, or virtual theocracies, it's obvious that their values will be as far as they can possibly be from those traditionally upheld in secular democracies where freedom of action, freedom of belief, and freedom of speech are of utmost importance.

309. Young, British Muslims 'getting more radical'

Comment #19682 by Janus on January 29, 2007 at 8:35 am

1: Muslim people, however misguided they may be- as all religious people are in their belief, are not brandishing a knife at society any more than "The Irish" were during the worst of the troubles in England.

- Muslim values are incompatible with Western humanistic values. Have you read the above article at all? Even if the percentages are grossly exagerated, it's clear that Muslims present a greater danger than any other ideological group, religious or not.

- The Muslim reproduction rate is two to three times greater than that of other citizens. And of course, the vast majority of children born of Muslim parents will grow up to be Muslim themselves, with no apparent decrease of religious fervor and fundamentalism (and a great increase, if the article is to be trusted). It won't take that many decades for this annoying minority to become a powerful force outnumbering any other single religious or non-religious group, especially with the decline of Christianity in Europe.

These are two things that could never have been said about the Irish.

2: Any atheist who even remotely agrees with what Dawkins and Harris are saying would by extension reject any person of any faith entering the UK, not simply Muslims.

Nonsense. A big part of Harris' message in particular is that WHAT religious people believe matters, that not all religions are equally foolish or equally dangerous. If you ignore a few religions with so few believers that they're utterly insignificant, Islam is by far the most oppressive, regressive, violent religion of them all.

3: I am an atheist, and agree almost to the point of being an acolyte of Dawkins, but to suggest banning faith schools or immigration is in any way a solution simply ignores history.

Banning faith schools would force Muslim parents to send their children to culturally and religiously diverse schools. That alone makes the banning of faith schools worth it. Of course, it would also give children an opportunity to spend some time in a place where they're not being indoctrinated into believing loads of blatantly false rubbish.

As for halting Muslim immigration, how is this not a good (partial) solution? The ascendency of Islam in Europe is inevitable, if things stay as they are. It seems obvious to me that the first thing to do is to stop the influx before worrying about how to deal with those we're already stuck with.

310. Young, British Muslims 'getting more radical'

Comment #19676 by Janus on January 29, 2007 at 7:58 am

Why is it alright for the government to engage in the violence involved in banning faith schools or ejecting millions of people from a geographic area, but it is not okay for people to engage in violence in the name of their religion?

Why is it all right to knock a guy out when he's brandishing a knife at you?

In both cases, because it's pre-emptive self-defense. You'd have to be an idiot to stand there and do nothing.

The majority of Muslims aren't just deluded. My aunt who believes in astrology and homeopathy is deluded. My (extremely liberal) Catholic grandmother is deluded. Most Muslims are deluded AND dangerous; perhaps not as individuals (except for extremists), but certainly as a large group.

In any event, I fail to see the violence involved in banning faith schools. If there is violence, it will come from our dear Muslim friends. The same goes for putting a halt to Muslim immigration. How any atheist who even remotely agrees with what Dawkins and Harris are saying can disagree with the implementation of these two measures, I can't understand.

Deportation is another thing entirely, and frankly I wouldn't support it even if it wasn't ethically troubling, simply because it's not practical. I would perhaps offer an incentive for Muslims to go back to their countries of origin, and focus on integrating those who will stay into our countries. The banning of faith schools would be a step in the right direction to accomplish that goal, that's for sure.

311. Young, British Muslims 'getting more radical'

Comment #19610 by Janus on January 28, 2007 at 10:57 pm

How regressive and oppressive does a belief system have to be in order to warrant draconian measures by our governments?

312. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #19603 by Janus on January 28, 2007 at 9:22 pm

Start with this one:
"It is a fact that faith is absolutely worthless as a way to find out the truth."

Short answer: Faith is belief without evidence.


Slightly longer answer:
There is nothing that suggests there is a real, objective basis behind the claims of religious believers. There is nothing that suggests consensus in religion and theology, nothing that indicates there might be progress of any sort.


Long answer:
A truth-seeking method has to incorporate a process of some sort that allows it to distinguish true assertions from false ones. Empiricism, for example, tests hypotheses by checking their coherence with external reality. We know empiricism works because two or more people using it completely independantly will necessarily reach the same conclusion, if there is enough evidence available, no matter how different these people's nationalities, worldviews, etc are (well, excepting worldviews which are anti-truth by their very nature, such as solipsism and postmodernism).

Faith, religion, and theology, on the other hand, have no way to figure out which assertions are true. It doesn't check for coherence with external reality, since by definition faith is belief without evidence. It sometimes evaluates the internal (logical) coherence of its assertions, but this says nothing about objective reality. I can come up with an exceptionally elegant and internally coherent definition of 'leprechauns', but this says nothing about the likelihood that they exist.

The only thing left is so-called subjective evidence, i.e. personal experiences or 'revelations'. Could they conceivably provide religious faith with a way to distinguish truth from falsehood? Of course. Show me someone who's never heard or read about the Christian god (like one of those primitive tribes in Africa), and who one day is able to quote several passages from the Bible. Or even better, show me someone who was imparted knowledge by God that no human possesses, like some scientific fact that will only be discovered decades later. Or, show me that there's some real, self-consistent basis behind these revelations. Are the vast majority of them experienced by Christians (or soon-to-be Christians)? Are the revelations experienced by Christians consistent with those of other Christians? Are all revelations experienced by Christians consistent with the Bible?

The answer to all of these questions is obviously no (and if it was yes, it wouldn't deserve the name 'faith' anymore, would it?). The only way that 'people of faith' will independantly arrive at the same conclusion using their 'method' is if they share so many beliefs that the conclusion is inevitable. Nothing even remotely comparable to what has been accomplished through empiricism has ever been accomplished via faith. There is nothing, in the long history of humankind, that made it look like religion is anything more than a long series of guesses based on wishful thinking.

313. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #19585 by Janus on January 28, 2007 at 3:38 pm

Prove it.

Which of the four facts mentioned in my previous post do you want me to 'prove'? All of them?

The first three, at the very least, seem self-evident to me. I daresay a sizeable fraction of educated Abrahamic religionists would agree with me about them.

314. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #19575 by Janus on January 28, 2007 at 1:08 pm

Norman,

I disagree that atheism is an opinion, and if it is for some atheists, it shouldn't be. When the topic at hand is objective reality, opinions are irrelevant; we can have more or less confidence in some of our beliefs, but they're still statements about the way things are, not about the way we would like them to be.

- It is a fact that there is no evidence for a god of any kind.
- It is a fact that skepticism (not believing in the truth of a proposition unless there's evidence to support it) is a good way to avoid being mistaken.
- It is a fact that faith is absolutely worthless as a way to find out the truth.
- It is a fact that the Judeo-Christian God, the Muslim God, and the gods of pretty much all religions are very, very implausible.

This battle between rationalism and religious faith is, ultimately, a very simple one:
We're right, and they're wrong.

315. In defense of atheism

Comment #19256 by Janus on January 26, 2007 at 12:54 am

Well said.

316. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #19196 by Janus on January 25, 2007 at 2:33 pm

Sullivan's reply:
http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2007/01/truth_and_conse.html

Basically, most of Sam's points are ignored. Sullivan very cleverly chooses to attack Sam's tendency towards supernaturalism in regard to the human mind, and uses that to try to demonstrate that there are other means to get to the truth about objective reality than science. He mentions history (as if it's not a science), and mathematics (as if mathematics, in and of themselves, say anything about objective reality), and concludes that religion and/or theology are like these disciplines in that it doesn't require rigorous coherence with external reality.

Of course, he never goes on to explain to us how _religion_ can get to the truth.

317. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #18896 by Janus on January 23, 2007 at 2:02 pm

This is a very weak argument which only requires the crafty theist to shift to a modified conception of a creator who stands "outside of time". My heart sank when I read it.

Sam should know better than to base an argument on the idea that a scientific theory could ever rule out the possibility of a creator.

I don't see why. No scientific theory can rule out the existence of a 'supreme being' (whatever the hell that is) outside of our universe or outside of time, but it (AFAIK) can rule out the possibility that our universe had a beginning, which means that it can't have been created. An entity defined as the creator of our universe cannot exist if our universe hasn't been created.

318. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #18876 by Janus on January 23, 2007 at 11:31 am

Sam has posted his reply on beliefnet.com. If anything it's better than the first. I honestly don't see how Sullivan can get out of this one (not that I think he got out of the first one...).

319. Intelligent design to feature in school RE lessons

Comment #18863 by Janus on January 23, 2007 at 9:41 am

I suppose this is a good thing... or it could be if the teacher's good.

What really worries me is, what is there to teach about ID that isn't grossly flawed, an outright lie, or a misrepresentation of what evolution is? What is there to say about ID beyond, "Well, some Christians, Muslims, and Jews are scientifically illiterate and thinkg Goddidit is a valid explanation"?

320. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #18558 by Janus on January 21, 2007 at 5:19 pm

Sullivan has (finally) replied:

http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2007/01/taking_scriptur.html

As Andrew admits, many of Sam's points have been ignored, as has been his final question to Sullivan. Overall, it's pretty much what we expected, lots of obfuscation, dodging and fuzziness, mixed in with a few good points. Can't wait for Sam's reply.

321. Beyond the Believers

Comment #18405 by Janus on January 20, 2007 at 3:43 pm

This will be my last post here, so I won't bother switching to the 'real' forum.

The assumption here is that life should be rational in its totality. Or that life that includes unreason is inherently flawed or dangerous. I contend neither.

Again, your equation of sanity with reason seems to me premature, and a contradiction of a large portion of valuable human experience.

You presume that secular atheism means "more rational" which I do not grant you, and furthermore that the more rational, the better, which I also do not concede. We are humans, not Vulcans.

Like Atran and the other religious apologists at the Salk conference, you're using a flawed definition of 'rational'. Being 100% rational doesn't mean you're a cold, emotionless calculating machine, it means you have a solid justification for everything you believe. Atran and others seem to believe that an emotion, or a simple desire, isn't a good justification for doing something, but it can be. Subjective feelings and desires are our most basic premises, after all, and they need no justification (although they may need occasional re-evaluation).

For example, I think there's nothing irrational (per se) about buying an extremely expensive piece of jewelry for a woman I love, even though I only make 25k a year and I've got practically no savings. After all, who's to say that I'm wrong to put my love for this woman ahead of my personal welfare? It may be stupid from their point of view, but because my actions are based on my subjective feelings, the only point of view which is relevant is my own.
In fact, I'm not even certain that it can be said that rationality and irrationality have anything to do with a situation like this. I'm tempted to say that emotions are a-rational, as opposed to irrational.

Real irrationality, which is what Dawkins and Harris are fighting against, is a belief about reality which isn't the result of a sincere desire to know the truth. Already the difference between what I've called a-rationality and irrationality is apparent: The former has nothing to do with the truth, but the latter does. To use a slightly different example, an irrational belief would be to believe that the woman I've mentioned above is in love with me purely because I love her. In other words, wishful thinking, thinking that has no basis in reality. My love for her wouldn't be irrational in and of itself, but it could lead me to have irrational beliefs.

Therefore, to say that the world is fundamentally irrational, as Atran does, or that irrationality is a valuable part of the human experience, as you do, is simply nonsense. Emotions are fundamental and valuable to human beings, but unjustified and/or false beliefs are not. To eradicate (or minimize) the human tendency towards the latter isn't only a desirable and achievable objective, it's an objective without a single downside.

As for my equating sanity with reason, I think I'll stand by it. A delusion is an unjustified belief held in spite of a lack of evidence or in spite of the evidence. An irrational person is a deluded person.

Perhaps, but Harris and Dawkins use the word "debate" much like the creationists use the "teach the controversy" angle. The conjuring of a friendly collegial contest of ideas conceals a not-so-hidden agenda to, as you say, "deconvert." If you are out to deconvert, you've already made up your mind, and can't really be said to be "debating" anything.

Good point, debate isn't the right word. Nevertheless, although there are certainly pragmatic, real-world consequences to religion, the fact remains that Dawkins and Harris want to make people realize that what they think is true is actually false. A hostage negotiation is something completely different, as I've said in my previous post. A negotiation where every uttered word is a lie can (and often is, from what I've read) be more successful than one where the negotiator cares about telling the truth. And despite his protestations of "you have to be honest with them", I think Atran would agree with me on this one.

You'll notice, though, that Scandinavia did not arrive at its present secular condition by external persuasion, which is an important point. I'm not saying, and I don't see Atran saying, "let's keep the world's theological quotient just where it is!" I think change and conceptual evolution are essential.

Actually, I don't think I've ever heard (or read) Atran saying that less religion would be a good thing. And most importantly, I've certainly never heard him say how we should proceed to "advance reason in an inherently unreasonable world", which is hilarious (or vomit-inducing, depending on my mood) considering his repeated declarations that Dawkins and Harris are so badly mistaken when it comes to their approach.

322. Beyond the Believers

Comment #18342 by Janus on January 19, 2007 at 11:09 pm

You leave out the second part of the quote, where he re-states his idea: "that is, there are no logical or empirical criteria for judging whether such utterances are true or not." I think this renders your interpretation questionable. The point is not that religious people don't "really" believe their myths, or that they don't "literally" believe them, but that they aren't contestable the way scientific truth claims are. (Yes, you have people pointing to Mount Ararat and the Shroud of Turin, but that's just sensationalism. It runs against the current of the majority of religious thought and experience.

I would point out that more than half of American Christians (and certainly the vast majority of Muslims worldwide) are creationists, and creationism makes several testable claims, but this would be beside the point of this post, which is to show that Atran isn't a reliable authority.

The point that Atran originally made at the Salk conference was that religious believers aren't really that irrational (or at least, not more than someone who's in love), and the argument about religious beliefs being comparable to poetic metaphors was invoked to defend that point, which is why I interpreted the citation as I did.

Anyway, either I'm right and Atran is completely wrong, or you're right and the argument does nothing to support Atran's point. After all, that some claims can't be falsified empirically or logically doesn't mean that making such claims is justified and rational. I may not be able to show that immaterial, invisible imps don't exist, but I can certainly demonstrate logically that belief in these imps is insane.

It wasn't a geometric proof for pete's sake, it was an concrete application of the idea that people don't take kindly to being mocked or dimsissed, and in fact it tends to make them more entrenched than when you started. Wouldn't you agree? Have you never found yourself becoming more attached to an idea because of pride? Even if you haven't, surely you've encountered it in others.

The point is that it is naive to demand that other people get with the program, and expect to have good results. It's not about the relative virtue of honesty or dishonesty, it's about basic human relations.

The point is that Atran keeps using his example of hostage negotiation over and over again to support his opinion. Dawkins and Harris advocate brutal honesty in the West, in conferences, articles, books, etc, so as to promote secularism, science, and reason.
And the only example Atran can come up with is a situation where the religious believers are so nutty they're willing to kidnap people, in countries that often are theocracies, and where the secularist's purpose has nothing at all to do with promoting secularism or reason or science, but with saving people's lives. Whatever else you think Atran believes about this subject, I don't see how you can deny that you can't conclude anything from this particular case. As I said, it's the textbook example of a non sequitur.

To speak for myself, no, I think I'm much more likely to be convinced if my interlocutor speaks his mind without trying to soften the blows. I think part of the reason I like Richard Dawkins is that I'm incredibly tired of the sugary, placid approach used by many intellectuals.

I also need to point out that Dawkins' and Harris' objective isn't only to deconvert believers, it's also to destroy the taboo that keeps us from attacking religion freely and openly.

But I disagree that it's not a representative case. Dialogue is better than war, if you have any cards to play at all (and we do), whether it's a hostage negotiation, or a so-called "Clash of Civiliations."

Good thing no one's arguing for a war then, eh?
And as I've already said, hostage negotiations and the theism VS atheism 'debate' have nothing in common. It's rather obvious if you think about it; a debate is about truth, a negotiation is only concerned with truth if it happens to be a useful tool to achieve your goal.

It wasn't a refutation, it was merely an observation that the notion of progress is far from patent.

Hey, I think Dawkins' zeitgeist theory is BS, but once again my intent was only to show that Atran is using a non sequitur. The shifting moral zeitgeist is about change in the overall moral beliefs of a civilization's population. Atran's argument is about as relevant as pointing out that the murder rate has increased in the last 100 years, which is to say not at all. A relevant argument would have been to say that the population's concept of what is 'horrible' and 'cruel' in war has changed for the worse in the last century (which obviously isn't the case).

But what really bugged me is that Atran began his little speech by calling Dawkins' theory "quasi-theological", at which point everyone was holding their breaths, expecting him to tell us WHY... and the only argument he has is this one.

At first glance it's not a non sequitur, because the conclusion is placed before the argument, but it's a non sequitur nevertheless.
You've noticed that I inserted 'therefores' in my paraphrasing of Atran. I felt it was necessary to dispel the effect created by the kind of clever wording described above.

The point is not that religion has "nothing" to do with it, but rather it has been presented as the sole causative influence, when in fact there are a complex set of social factors involved, such as kinship bonds.

Ahh, this is without a doubt the religious apology which was most often used at Salk, and not only by Scott Atran. Too bad it's a complete misrepresentation. Dawkins and Harris have said again and again and again, both in their books and at the conference, that they don't think religion is the "root of all evil", and that they acknowledge the existence of non-believing suicide bombers such as the Tamil Tigers.

The thing about religion, however, is that despite what Scott Atran believes, it can be fought and eradicated relatively easily. People like you and I are clear evidence of that, as are countries like Sweden. I say "relatively easily", because while eradicating religion will be very, very difficult, it will be much easier to eradicate than the basic human tendency to divide the world into Us and Them, which unlike religion is probably an intrinsic part of human nature.

So while, as Dawkins and Harris admit, religion is only one of the problems that we're faced with, it's a very big problem, and most importantly it's a problem that can (at least in principle) be dealt with.

By the way, I'm sure that you've noticed that this is yet another point that Atran has gotten completely wrong: He believes that, like romantic love and false hope, religion is part of human nature, and to try to get rid of it is irrational. Isn't it obvious that if a sizeable part of humanity is rational and atheistic, it's at least theoretically possible for all (or almost all) of humanity to become rational and atheistic? Does Atran think that countries like Sweden are anomalies, that it's just an accident that so many atheists live over there?

Scott Atran is a perfect example of someone who, to use Dan Dennett's phrase, "believes in belief", despite being an atheist.

323. Beyond the Believers

Comment #18328 by Janus on January 19, 2007 at 6:54 pm

The first is just nonsense. How is is something like, "The creator of the universe sent his son to Earth to die for our sins" literally senseless in that it altogether lacks truth conditions? Yes, it's stupid, but no Christian except perhaps a handful of theologians and bishops thinks of it as a poetic metaphor. Anyone who's spent a few hours talking with a few Abrahamic believers knows their beliefs are statements about objective reality, regardless of how certain they are of them.

As for the second, Atran's reasoning could be reworded like this: "In a hostage negotiation with Muslim fundamentalists, explaining how preposterous Islam is will get you and your hostage killed, therefore brutal honesty isn't a good way to deal with religious irrationality."

Pretty much a textbook example of non sequitur: the conclusion doesn't follow from the premise.

I remember that Atran made this argument at the Salk conference when he was engaged in a mini-debate with Richard Dawkins, to support his assertion that honesty isn't a good way to advance the secularist cause. IIRC, Dawkins pointed out that a hostage negotiation isn't a very representative case. Atran just ignored him and kept talking.

If you've watched the Salk videos, you might remember a few more of Atran's non sequiturs:
- Wars get progressively more horrible as time goes on, therefore Dawkins' theory of the shifting moral zeitgeist is wrong.

- Muslim suicide bombers have usually formed a sort of family-like bond between them, which seems to strengthen their desire to martyr themselves, therefore the doctrines of jihad, martyrdom, and eternal bliss for the families of martyrs contained in Islam have nothing to do with suicide bombings.

(after Dawkins points out that the bombers themselves admitted they were motivated by the promise of paradise and the ideal of martyrdom...)

- The concept of paradise ties with the love and affection these people have for each other, therefore Islam has nothing to do with suicide bombings.

324. Beyond the Believers

Comment #18316 by Janus on January 19, 2007 at 3:53 pm

I must say I'm baffled that some people are giving any credence to Atran when it comes to religion and the danger it represents. Like most people I haven't read his book, but I've watched the Salk videos and read every article Atran has written in response to the conference, and practically everything he's said or written is riddled with logical fallacies, especially non sequiturs. Granted, they're not all easy to spot, but how can you not laugh out loud when you hear nonsense like:


"core religious beliefs, like poetic metaphors, are literally senseless in that they altogether lack truth conditions."


or read a blatant non sequitur like:

[on the subject of how to deal with religious irrationality in general]
"(for example, in negotiations with Hamas and Israel to stop Qassam missile attacks, or in field investigations of beheadings in Azad Kahsmir – efforts reported in the last two issues of The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists).
If I employed Harris's recommendation for dealing with irrationality in such cases, by lambasting the conflicting parties with how preposterous are their core beliefs, I would probably be kicked out or killed (and in misjudging the ways reason is best advanced, I have on a few occasions been very nearly killed)."

325. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #18282 by Janus on January 19, 2007 at 9:49 am

"Where is Andrew's reply? Does he need some more time to think about this?"

Not to think, to pray.








*snicker*

326. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #17989 by Janus on January 17, 2007 at 9:15 pm

Simply brilliant, Mr. Harris! (How long until we can call you Doctor Harris, by the way?) ;)

The only weakness I can find is this sentence:
"They also perpetuate the myth that a person must believe things on insufficient evidence in order to have an ethical and spiritual life."

Andrew Sullivan will most likely call you out on this one, since I don't think most religious moderates believe that only religious people can live an ethical life. I'd just drop this assertion, if I were you.

327. A deadly certitude

Comment #17944 by Janus on January 17, 2007 at 4:32 pm

Well, Weinberg is absolutely right. The question that remains is, what do we do about it? Even those of us who have few means to advance the 'cause' of secularism and defend against religious superstition can at least do _something_ to influence Christians we meet in our lives, or on the internet. But what can we do to make a difference (no matter how small) in isolated, technologically-backwards Muslim countries?

328. Sam Harris at Idea City '05

Comment #17939 by Janus on January 17, 2007 at 4:11 pm

I've seen this one a while ago, it's the vid that's made me a Sam Harris fan, despite the misgivings I had (and still have) about his less than rigorous stance towards reincarnation and psychics.

329. Sam Harris's Faith in Eastern Spirituality and Muslim Torture

Comment #16406 by Janus on January 6, 2007 at 2:12 pm

Galactic Lord Xenu is right on the money.

330. Ghosts in the Machine

Comment #15300 by Janus on December 30, 2006 at 8:13 am

Post-modernist stupidity at its finest. "Never mind what _IS_, reality is what you WANT IT to be."

It's so child-like and, frankly, pathetic, it makes me want to puke.

331. The problem with secularism

Comment #14386 by Janus on December 22, 2006 at 8:24 am

*giggles uncontrollably*

332. Preaching to the converted

Comment #13288 by Janus on December 16, 2006 at 8:35 pm

I'm sure some religious nut on some message board somewhere on the internet is looking for a way to post that quote as I'm typing these very words.


Anyway, good article, but goddamn, is this silly tendency to use religious language in relation to Dawkins, Harris, and other 'militant' atheists EVER going to die out? It's so cliché and overused.

333. Richard Dawkins on The Late Late Show with Pat Kenny

Comment #12145 by Janus on December 10, 2006 at 7:11 pm

Actually, I think it's quite possible, and even easy, to go from atheist to theist. After all, atheism is just a lack of belief in gods, there's nothing about atheism that makes it unlikely the person will believe nonsense.

However, I think most of us who post on this site, and on sites like Internet Infidels, share the ideologies of naturalism, rationalism, empiricism, skepticism, etc. And THAT makes it very unlikely any of us will ever become theists.

In other words, let's not assume that 'atheist' means 'reasonable person'.

334. Richard Dawkins on The Late Late Show with Pat Kenny

Comment #12133 by Janus on December 10, 2006 at 5:55 pm

Jakob, I agree, but I think the real problem is that most people _pretend_ to be more interested in the truth than they actually are. Well, it could be argued that everybody is like that, but some people are worse than others, and religious people tend to be among these.

335. The Atheist Delusion: a pisspoor presentation

Comment #11977 by Janus on December 8, 2006 at 8:53 pm

Brilliant!

Someone needs to post this on a Christian message board, _without_ telling them what it's really about.

336. The God Delusion in Private Eye

Comment #11689 by Janus on December 6, 2006 at 2:34 pm

Whoa, my avatar is messing up the layout. Is this normal?

337. The God Delusion in Private Eye

Comment #11688 by Janus on December 6, 2006 at 2:33 pm

Good to see _Is God Shit?_ is beating _Is Richard Dawkins Shit?

338. The delusion of Christianity: Fairy tales that changed the world

Comment #11199 by Janus on December 3, 2006 at 4:42 pm

That was way too condescending. All but the dumbest theist would get the point after the Mormon story.

339. Reptiles of the Mind -- Giving Thanks for Rational Atheists

Comment #9275 by Janus on November 24, 2006 at 9:57 am

As I was reading this article, I kept waiting and waiting for the author to provide us with a good reason why belief without evidence deserves the same respect or tolerance as do other beliefs. It never came.

340. Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and E.O. Wilson on the gospel of science

Comment #8640 by Janus on November 21, 2006 at 9:48 pm

Is there any writer, any journalist, any blogger, any _anything_ that is capable of criticizing Dawkins WITHOUT deforming what Dawkins has said and written beyond all recognition?

Actually, never mind the above question. I'm being unfair to the authors of the various other articles that have been posted on this website. _This_ article is filled with so many outright LIES that it makes the rest of them look like paragons of intellectual honesty.

341. Beyond belief: In place of God

Comment #8586 by Janus on November 21, 2006 at 6:54 pm

It's not just you. Journalist bias?

342. The God Delusion? Part 1

Comment #6837 by Janus on November 15, 2006 at 7:21 pm

"1. Science is the only valid way to gain knowledge. Nothing about God is needed to explain the world. Eventually science will uncover all mysteries. Those that it can't explain don't exist."

You're off to a pretty bad start when your summary of Dawkins' "bedrock" is a silly strawman.

343. Richard Dawkins and the "new atheists" come to America

Comment #6520 by Janus on November 14, 2006 at 4:44 pm

I should clarify the above comment (6516):

The article is much more accurate than I thought it would be, _considering it's from AnswersInGenesis_.


- Janus

344. Richard Dawkins and the "new atheists" come to America

Comment #6516 by Janus on November 14, 2006 at 4:28 pm

Hmmmm, that's actually much more accurate than I thought it would be.

Regarding what they call our arguments, #1 is the usual lie, #2 and #4 are exaggerations, #3 sounds about right.

And of course, the following paragraph,
"In America today, with a population of 300 million, there are only 2,500 members of "American Atheists." Richard Dawkins, on his current tour, hopes to boost that number by a significant margin."

... is nonsense, as American Atheists is only one minor atheist organization, one that, I think, most of us want nothing to do with. Prof. Dawkins certainly never said he wanted to increase _their_ ranks, but rather those of all atheists, with a small 'a'.

345. Teach sex and evolution or close, Quebec evangelical schools told

Comment #5522 by Janus on November 9, 2006 at 8:26 pm

Godless is, unfortunately, completely and absolutely right.

By the way, I need to point out that Prof. Dawkins' lecture in Montreal wasn't about The God Delusion or atheism as such, it was about 'the strangeness of science'. I thought it was weird at the time, since all other lectures and Q&A sessions were about TGD, but I just shrugged and forgot about it. Now I wonder, was it entirely Dawkins' choice?

346. The Dawkins Delusion (Different Article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #5489 by Janus on November 9, 2006 at 5:08 pm

Ah, I've seen this argument before. The tactic is to convince the reader that ideologies (religions included) don't have any influence on the way people behave. Ideologies are morally neutral (or morally good), it's _people_ who twist them to further their evil ends.

That's obviously nonsense that not even McGrath himself truly believes. The whole POINT of ideologies is to alter the way people think. Is McGrath saying that had Nazi youths not been raised in the National Socialist ideology, they would have been just as evil? Puh-leez.

Of course, no one's saying that ideologies control EVERYTHING their followers think and do. That's precisely Dawkins' point in chapter 7 (or is it 8?), where he argues that even fundamentalists cherry-pick the 'nice' parts of their scripture. But does that mean that these fundamentalists would have been just as homophobic, and just as hateful if they hadn't been indoctrinated in Christianity or Islam? Obviously not.

One needs only look at Christianity's core beliefs to see that...
1) It elevates faith as a virtue, which strongly discourages intellectual freedom.
2) It states that the Christian God is THE only source of morality in the universe, which strongly discourages moral freedom.
3) It condemns all other religions as misguided (at best), which strongly discourages religious freedom.

An ideology may not represent the totality of its followers' beliefs, but it certainly is a significant part of it. It's a fact that faced with certain moral dilemnas, the average Christian will behave very differently than the average secular humanist.

As for the rest of the article, as people have pointed out, it's just one huge strawman of Dawkins' stance. Professor Dawkins needs to stop being so damn respectful of those he calls 'sophisticated theologians'. Their beliefs may not be as crude as those of fundamentalists, and they may not hold beliefs that are as morally repugnant, but they're just as intellectually dishonest. Actually, scratch that, in my experience theologians are usually much MORE dishonest than the average fundy. McGrath and his ilk are a disgrace to the intellectual community.

347. Controversial Religious Summer Camp Closed

Comment #5306 by Janus on November 8, 2006 at 7:44 pm

One down... how many to go?

348. Liberty University is looking for Biology Professors

Comment #4899 by Janus on November 6, 2006 at 8:25 pm

*chuckle*

349. God vs. science: Can religion stand up to the test?

Comment #4869 by Janus on November 6, 2006 at 4:33 pm

Manfred's right, but there is also positive evidence that the mind is exclusively a physical process. The simple fact that it's possible to _completely_ alter a person's personality, to utterly change the very essence of who a person is by removing or damaging part of the brain is evidence strong enough to convince even the most ignorant layman, but there's much more if you care to read a book on neurobiology.

Of course, you can claim that the mind and soul are completely different things, but this (at the very least) makes the soul completely superfluous. You might as well believe in invisible, immaterial imps whose job is to pull all objects and people towards more massive objects to simulate the force we know as 'gravity'.

Sure, it's _possible_, but immaterial gravity-imps are not only unsupported by evidence, they're also a _superfluous_ explanation since Einstein's discoveries.

350. The New Unbelievers

Comment #4854 by Janus on November 6, 2006 at 2:57 pm

Agreed, N.A. That's certainly been my experience.