351. War in Heaven: Hitchens Meets D'Souza on Home Turf

Comment #81135 by Rtambree on October 24, 2007 at 8:20 am

76. Comment #81130 by steve99

>this is a classic theist trick. They divert the argument from 'religion is true' to 'religion is useful'.

Yes, it's a sad admission from some fence-sitters that seem to think that while no religion may be true, humanity needs to have it in order to get on with each other. In other words, we can't handle truth. Lies are not a good foundation upon which to build a civilisation.

352. Debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #81134 by Rtambree on October 24, 2007 at 8:14 am

In the latest eSkeptic, circulated by Michael Shermer, he'd like some constructive criticism about how to handle these debates...

Quote...
After watching my debate with Dinesh D'Souza last week I would be interested in your comments and constructive criticisms because Dinesh and I will be debating a similar but broader topic in December at Caltech ("Is Religion a Force for Good or Evil? & Can you be Good without God?" December 9, Beckman Auditorium, tickets available at the Caltech Public Events Office at 626-395-4652 or toll free at 888-222-5832).
Please email your comments to me at mshermer@skeptic.com

353. War in Heaven: Hitchens Meets D'Souza on Home Turf

Comment #81128 by Rtambree on October 24, 2007 at 7:55 am

Some points:

1. Political ideologies (fascism, bolshevism, maoism, free market capitalism) are like secular religions - they have holy scriptures, prophets, and people get killed in order that some abstract intangible utopia can come into being. In addition to the Left - Right axis and the Libertarian - Authoritarian axis, there should also be an Empirical - Ideological axis.

2. Imagine the carnage if the churches and religious fanatics of 1,000 years ago had modern technology - the body counts would be horrendous.

3. Shouldn't the Spanish Christian bloodbaths in South America during the 1500s get added to their tolls?

4. Lies should not be permitted in debates.

5. Ultimately debates about truth don't decide anything. Your guy could be a stuttering inarticulate mumbler that speaks the truth but still "loses" the debate to a slick experienced orator that twists facts. Such is the nature of rhetoric.

6. Body counts is a separate issue to "is there a God". As far as we know, Lord of the Rings fans haven't killed anybody in the name of Tolkien, but that doesn't make Middle Earth real.

354. Debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #80636 by Rtambree on October 22, 2007 at 12:21 pm

All you guys that predict Hitchens to maul this guy have short memories.

Hitchens has just let a much easier target, Alister McGrath, completely off the hook.

If you've watched enough of these events, you'll know that there's little actual DEBATE, in the strict sense of the word. What will happen is Hitchens will give the first part of his standard setlist of arguments and so will D'Souza, and we've heard it all before. Then Hitchens will give a second set of oft-repeated arguments, and so on, also ignored by D'Souza, then there'll be some predictable questions from the audience (without God where do we get our morality, etc), and then it's time to wrap up. The two participants might as well phone in or pre-record their parts. The event is organised more like two concurrent speeches rather than a debate. In the Hitchens - McGrath encounter, the actual "debate" took up less than 10 minutes.

Debate should be about engaging with the other's arguments on the fly and rebutting them, and Hitchens hasn't demonstrated that ability. To be fair, most of the time, it hasn't been his fault, as the formats of these debates don't actually permit much interaction. It's a lot easier for all speakers to keep regurgitating the same setlist of points than to think on the fly.

I hope I'm not disappointed, but judging by the many prior contests, I'm not expecting much of this debate. You need: a shorter opening statement time, a tougher moderator that enforces speakers to answer questions, a period where the participants ask questions of each other, and then fielding questions from the audience together (and not alternately) with say 2-3 hours all up instead of 1-1.5 hours.

Some of posters on this site have stated a preference for a multi-panel debate - perhaps three on a side. I'm all for that too, although it's more difficult to organise, and you'd need to allocate a lot of time to stop it deteriorating into a series of soundbites.

355. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #80104 by Rtambree on October 20, 2007 at 1:33 am

>(1) McGrath said that there is a growing body of secular research that shows numerous benefits of faith.

Which faith? Scientology? Mormonism? Amish? Buddhism? How do you decide doctrinal issues between faiths and denominations based upon some small statistical difference in health which may have a myriad of other psychophysiological explanations?

>(2) McGrath compared the Norm and the Fringe. I think Harris and Hitch say that faith is immoral.

Believing things without evidence, or despite of evidence, is wrong. Religious propositions should be subject to the same vigorous testing as any other economic or political ideology.

Religion has had a good run - 1,000 years ago it controlled every aspect of life in Europe, and Europe regressed. Between classical Greece to the Renaissance and Enlightenment was gigantic dip in the curve of progress in all aspects of life. Only when theocratic power began to wane, did Europe pull out of it. The dark ages were violent, barbaric, corrupt and repressive. The experiment has been run. We know what life is like run on religious principles. Just like the failure of Stalinism (the experiment was run and it failed), so too a religious society has been tried on a Continent-wide scale for many centuries, and it failed. It's time to move on.

356. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #80049 by Rtambree on October 19, 2007 at 6:21 pm

296. Comment #80035 by newskin

>but from your statement i am lead to beleive that you must have some knowledge of this and dismissed such phenomena as: 'the genetic code', transposons, mtDNA, introns etc as god having at best a lazy day - if not a decidedly off day...

That's easy - any Abrahamic monotheist would attribute anything bad to "The Fall of Adam" or "Satan". God gets all the credit for good stuff. And humans or the devil get lumped with all the nasty or inept stuff.

You can't employ logic to convince someone out of a position that they didn't use logic to get into in the first place.

It doesn't take that much intelligence to make up a post-hoc reason to ensure you always reconcile the world to your pre-determined conclusion. Doesn't matter what it is: size and age of the universe, poorly designed life, mass extinctions, churches being hit by lightning, studies failing to find any evidence for prayer efficacy, evolution, religious violence, good things happening to bad people, bad things happening to good people, natural disasters, etc - they can always conjure up a convenient excuse.

Here's the Top Five 'get out of jail' cards that the Abrahamic believers employ:

1. God gave Man free will.
2. God is testing our faith
3. God moves in mysterious ways
4. Satan is tempting you
5. It's God's will and He has a plan for you.

357. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #80018 by Rtambree on October 19, 2007 at 2:30 pm

>I would much rather (generally) that people lead good and meaningful lives than happy and healthy ones, for example

That's either a meaningless statement or sociopathic, I can't decide which.

358. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #80004 by Rtambree on October 19, 2007 at 1:59 pm

>Then there is no basis to claim that anything is better than anything else since every such comparison (e.g., republicanism v. socialism)

Hang on - we were talking Art. Now you've changed the topic to political philosophies, upon which I've already given an answer in post #281.

>requires baseline assumptions as to what "better" and "best" are -- and there's no science in that.

That all people in a society should be happy, healthy, prosperous, free, doesn't need any scientific or philosophical rationalisation.

It is better to be healthy than unhealthy, better to be happy than unhappy. These are truths that are self-evident.

359. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #80001 by Rtambree on October 19, 2007 at 1:55 pm

>everything we know and believe in is based upon science

Ideally, yes. It should be based upon observation i.e. empiricism.

As opposed to knowing and believing solely from "authority", or "tradition" or "revelation" or "intuition" or "wish fulfilment" which are the ways that religions operate.

360. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #79996 by Rtambree on October 19, 2007 at 1:45 pm

>So you think it's incoherent to claim that Bach is better than Milli Vanilli

Yes, I do. Some people enjoy Bach and get pleasure from his music, and some people enjoy Milli Vanilli and get pleasure from their music. To claim one style or genre is "superior" or more worthy than another is subjective at best and elitist at worst. Thousands of academics have wrestled with this issue and tried to find a set of objective criteria to fit artworks into a hierarchy, and all failed.

Anything can be art in the eye of the beholder. It's just sensory candy, after all. Whatever works for you. Whether you get off to Michael Bolton's Greatest Hits or late Beethoven String Quartets, you're still getting off, and an fMRI machine won't be able to distinguish between the "quality" of the experience.

361. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #79990 by Rtambree on October 19, 2007 at 1:20 pm

>What controlled experiments shall I use to determine if my beloved loves me back?

Examine their behaviour.

>What controlled experiments shall I use to determine if my friend is trustworthy?

Examine their behaviour.

>What controlled experiments shall I use to determine if candidate A is more worthy of my support than candidate B?

Examine their policies and their past track record.

>What controlled experiments shall I use to determine which economic and political systems are best?

There are over 170+ countries in the world, each with a different set of government policies. Which ones are returning the best results for their populations? The Human Development Index of the UN is a good starting place, but there are many more indices. The Scandinavian countries seem to come out best by most measures.

>What controlled experiments shall I use to determine that Bach is better than Milli Vanilli?

Art is entirely subjective. Whatever makes you happiest. Most people appreciate art/music that is tuned to just the right optimal level between surprise and familiarity "for them". Different people have different "sweet spots" depending on experience and disposition.

362. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #79952 by Rtambree on October 19, 2007 at 8:19 am

272. Comment #79950 by bluejway

>Thank you science and especially the specific kind of science of controlled experiments, for that is the only way of knowing.

That's better - you're starting to get hang of it. So much better than getting your knowledge out of a 2,000 year old book full of contradictions, prescriptive violence and superstitions subject to a myriad of selective interpretations.

363. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #79946 by Rtambree on October 19, 2007 at 7:46 am

269. Comment #79944 by chapstick08 on October 19, 2007 at 7:38 am

>I've listened to the first 10 minutes of McGrath's speech and he still hasn't said anything.

Imagine being a waiter taking his order in a restaurant.

364. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #79935 by Rtambree on October 19, 2007 at 6:59 am

266. Comment #79934 by windweaver

Yes, a lot of people here (myself included) disagree with Hitchens over his Iraq stance and it's been endlessly discussed. But we can separate out the other arguments about "does God exist" and "does religion do more harm than good", and each point is valid or invalid on its own merits.

Sam Harris also has a rather perplexing soft spot for Buddhism, but that doesn't invalidate his other arguments.

365. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #79724 by Rtambree on October 18, 2007 at 10:32 am

Alister Mcgrath (transcribed by Donald):

>"I'd just like to respond to that if I may. I think what I'd like to say in response is that I think he is right to make those points, and that we need also to go further and begin to explore, and the kind of questions I would like to discuss in response are whether these are typical or fringe points. It seems to me that there is real need to try to make this kind of distinction. But I'd also like to try and make a more general point, and that is that world views in general, whatever they are, have the capacity to animate people to the extent that they feel that they must go and do things. Now, I would not argue from that that that shows that atheists in general, or atheists on particular, are mistaken or violent. Is it God that is doing this? A very important question, it seems to me, is how we know what God is like. The point I want to make is that what you think God is like has a profound impact on what you think God is urging you to do."

That's an extraordinary paragraph. Are there awards for that style of extemporisation? Surely a missed opportunity for a career in political speechwriting.

366. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #79681 by Rtambree on October 18, 2007 at 6:37 am

225. Comment #79678 by phasmagigas on October 18, 2007 at 6:24 am

>whan a theist asks 'where do you (atheist) get your morals from?' I

Another good response is to ask in return "on what basis do you choose which parts of your scripture are true and which are metaphorical? Which of the many ethical prescriptions are to be ignored and which are to be obeyed, and why?"

367. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #79679 by Rtambree on October 18, 2007 at 6:29 am

224. Comment #79676 by Fedler

I'm not sure what atheists can learn from theists, other than gaining an insight into human cognition.

The effortless post hoc confabulation employed by theists to reconcile whatever discoveries science makes is fascinating. It's a display of human ingenuity and creativity: how language can be employed to bend logic, so that one always reaches the conclusion already pre-determined for emotional reasons.

Francis Bacon was aware of these cognitive dissonances 400 years ago, and we haven't shaken them off, although it is encouraging that some countries in Scandinavia are almost there. Perhaps one or two more generations and we'll have truly atheist liberal englightened countries that lead the world in standard of living, human rights, foreign aid, environmental cleanliness, quality of education, egalitarian distribution of wealth, etc.

368. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #79674 by Rtambree on October 18, 2007 at 6:11 am

219. Comment #79668 by BAEOZ

AMDG = Alister McGrath Drinking Game, post #209, suggested by Teratornis in post #201.

369. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #79657 by Rtambree on October 18, 2007 at 5:13 am

213. Comment #79655 by BAEOZ on October 18, 2007 at 5:05 am

>I'm gonna get burnt for this but (I can't help myself after 9 stubbies)....

Thanks for these corrections. I'll incorporate them into the next version AMDG 2.0 :)

214. Comment #79656 by Logicel

Very clever.

370. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #79648 by Rtambree on October 18, 2007 at 4:20 am

201. Comment #79586 by Teratornis

RE: Alister McGrath Drinking Game. Excellent idea.

Use of passive voice e.g. "what I would like to say..." Take a sip.

Use of double passive voice e.g. "what I would think I would like to say" Take two sips.

Use of triple passive voice e.g. "what I believe I would think I would like to say..." Take three sips.

Quotes CS Lewis as authority. Take a sip.

"I used to be an atheist, but..." Take a sip.

"transformative". Take a sip.

"in some way" Take a sip.

"tension to be resolved" Take a sip.

"warrants further discussion/investigation" or similiar words. Take a sip.

"interpretation" Take a sip.

"it's true for me" or "it makes sense to me" Take a sip

Head becomes loose and tips over at more than a 45 degree angle. Take a sip.

Doesn't answer a question addressed to him. Take a sip.

Actually makes a clear concise point... Skull remainder of beverage.


Any more?

371. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #79565 by Rtambree on October 17, 2007 at 6:02 pm

184. Comment #79558 by prettygoodformonkeys

>Hitchens is a master debater

Maybe, but not on this night. He let McGrath off the hook. He could have destroyed him. McGrath was a sitting duck. I had hopes, as Hitchens began his opening speech being quite adamant that he would find out where McGrath stood, and then promptly forgot to pursue this point. Hitchens must have become hypnotised by the woffle, by the swaying, by trying to unravel the sentences to extract their meaning.

Dawkins also failed to stop McGrath in mid-sentence and ask "what do you actually mean by that". McGrath got away with his gobbledegook yet again. He must be thinking, "these atheists are really easy to mesmerise"

372. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #79455 by Rtambree on October 17, 2007 at 9:38 am

157. Comment #79447 by Katherine

>I'd like to see Alister McGrath V George Carlin!

What about making it more fair and balanced - say versus Marcel Marceau, or the Postmodern Generator?

373. Help Counter the New Atheist Crusade to 'Evangelize' America!

Comment #79434 by Rtambree on October 17, 2007 at 8:46 am

It's possible to select $0 for the book, but you still have to enter your credit card details.

374. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #79419 by Rtambree on October 17, 2007 at 8:26 am

RE: Ideal match-ups:

I'd like to see Alister McGrath up against Andrew Dice Clay

375. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #79381 by Rtambree on October 17, 2007 at 5:48 am

124. Comment #79366 by cyberguy on October 17, 2007 at 4:39 am

and Elentar

Yes, deconstructing McGrath's sentences, by peeling away the florid and vacuous phrases, deferential pseudo-agreement, hyper-passive third-order voice, self-references, relativisms, and allusions to future discussion points that don't actually get discussed, lead one to conclude that nothing actually is said. Nothing. McGrath is a linguistic mirage, he wears no clothes, he is a fraud, and Hitchens should have gone in for the kill when the capitulation to relativism took place at the end.

376. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #79364 by Rtambree on October 17, 2007 at 4:27 am

Hitchens opened with the goal that he was going to find out what McGrath actually stood for.

Disappointingly, not only did Hitchens fail, he didn't really try.

377. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #79340 by Rtambree on October 17, 2007 at 1:45 am

McGrath's closing remarks about relativism (his interpretation is true for him) leave him open to the question that is often directed to atheists - how can you tell right from wrong?

Hitchens could have thrown this one in McGrath's face, given every interpretation of the Bible seems to be equally valid and that there is no way of distinguishing between interpretations.

Hitchens was weakest when he spoke about needing to destroy all enemies, which doesn't sound compatibile with the ideals of western civlisation that he upholds. In a civilised country, the cycle of violence stops when perpetrators are brought to justice by an objective dispassionate arbiter, rather than the never ending vendettas of tit-for-tat violence.

But it was hard to declare a debate winner as McGrath didn't actually say anything, or answer any questions, and the moderator and Hitchens were far too lenient on him.

378. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #79279 by Rtambree on October 16, 2007 at 5:14 pm

Imagine being a student of McGrath's at Oxford and having to wade through his incessant inane drivel every day for years on end.

If just one hour of his vacuous waffle induces headaches, imagine entire semesters. What lecture notes could one take?

379. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #79210 by Rtambree on October 16, 2007 at 1:06 pm

Wrong format - too loose. One needs to pin McGrath down with a specific question that requires a specific answer. One needs a bulldog interviewer (e.g. Jeremy Paxman) who is relentless, "No, don't woffle, answer the question, do you actually believe this?"

McGrath is unintelligible. His phrases are grammatically correct, but totally empty of content.

He didn't respond to McGrath's points. They might as well not have been in the same room.

380. Norway flourishes as secular nation

Comment #76091 by Rtambree on October 4, 2007 at 5:09 pm

The USA would have to shed two religions: Christianity and the belief in free-market capitalism if it's to follow Norway's example and climb up the rankings.

381. A hole lot of nothing found by astronomers

Comment #65638 by Rtambree on August 25, 2007 at 8:52 am

Let's leave this to the philosophers to sort out. Right up their alley. It should keep them busy for centuries.

382. Send In the Clergy!

Comment #65282 by Rtambree on August 23, 2007 at 1:03 pm

Another example of the government being afraid of its own population. If only the people would realise...

383. Enemies of Reason

Comment #65238 by Rtambree on August 23, 2007 at 9:55 am

The very opening sentence of Program 1 is incorrect - we have never sent orbiters to Neptune. Voyager 2 flew past Neptune, but it never orbited any planet. No other probes have been to Neptune.

I know it's pedantry - but it's a bit of a howler to open a program on exposing misunderstanding of science, with an erroneous statement about science.

[btw, the second part of the sentence, about eradicating smallpox is not technically true either].

384. CNN Request for 'I-Reports' on religion

Comment #64983 by Rtambree on August 22, 2007 at 2:35 pm

Two words: Grow up

385. Public Debate on Complexity and Evolution

Comment #61176 by Rtambree on August 4, 2007 at 3:25 am

I wish I would have known about this - I would have attended. Where are these type of events announced before they occur? Was it on the Upcoming Events section on the left hand side of this page? I don't recall it being there.

386. Islamic creationist group launches glitzy, global blitz

Comment #61044 by Rtambree on August 3, 2007 at 12:09 pm

Teaching lies and ignorance is a form of child abuse

387. Interview with Michael Behe

Comment #61039 by Rtambree on August 3, 2007 at 11:52 am

Colbert is impersonating someone who is pretending to agree with the guest while trying to challenge the ideas because he actually disagrees, all the while, keeping a straight face - not a bad juggling act.

388. They let anybody onto the faculty at Oxford nowadays

Comment #60928 by Rtambree on August 3, 2007 at 6:24 am

McGrath is a fraudulent intellectual - his statements are just as vacuous as the French postmodernists. Whether he believes his own obfuscation and gibberish is genuine discourse or not, his employers and students are getting ripped off and should demand a refund of salary and fees. He brings the distinguished name of Oxford into disrepute.

389. CNN Debate on Koran in Toilet

Comment #60521 by Rtambree on August 2, 2007 at 5:57 am

Is this Hate Speech - moving all Korans and Bibles to the "Fiction" section of a bookstore?

390. CNN Debate on Koran in Toilet

Comment #60478 by Rtambree on August 2, 2007 at 3:17 am

This reminds me of the debate on flag burning which many Americans get all worked up about, with repeated attempts to criminalize it in congress.

391. Philip Kitcher - Living with Darwin

Comment #59817 by Rtambree on July 30, 2007 at 6:13 pm

I'd like to add my voice to the comments above - I interpreted Kitcher's argument as essentially one about effective tactics. If we want to see a secular world, and we want to adopt a scientific, evidence-based approach, then what will be the best way to get us there?

What explains the variation in religiosity between countries?

Repeatedly saying "reliigon is a load of crap. You're all idiots" may be true, but it may not be very effective in "de-programming" a society.

After all, north-western Europe didn't become largely secular because there was a Dawkins banging on about religion, but because a social liberal democracy with good health, media, education, and economic security creates conditions where religion has less purchase, less traction. On average, the less you need God, the less you believe in God.

In this sense, Kitcher's points about tone might be valid from a tactical point of view. But I think it's more complex than that - for some people, a blunt, direct approach may work, for others it may be simply following the herd - i.e. if the herd (role models, leaders, peers are atheists, then they will be too), and for others it may arise spontanteously over a generation once certain social conditions are met in society.

Why would an atheist that detests religion pursue a strategy that consolidates and radicalises religion? It's analagous to the "War on Terror" that actually creates more terrorists - counter-productive.

392. How could God allow 26 pilgrims to die in a crash?

Comment #59189 by Rtambree on July 28, 2007 at 3:37 am

I don't see what the mystery is for a Christian. God loved the victims so much He called them to be with Him. Surely being in heaven is much better than being on Earth with taxes, wars, suffering, cancer, Paris Hilton, etc.

The brain can find hundreds of different ways to confabulate.

393. Don't eat at the Outback Steakhouse on Route 3...

Comment #58955 by Rtambree on July 26, 2007 at 6:36 pm

There may even be a second twist on this, that Christian Trolls themselves are posting the most extreme comments caricaturing atheists and then other Christians get outraged and think it's "official atheist policy".

394. Susan Blackmore interviews Dan Dennett

Comment #58318 by Rtambree on July 24, 2007 at 12:18 pm

Judging by the 400 year old history of science, what usually happens when a breakthrough discovery is made by researchers is that the philosophers had it totally wrong - not even in the same ballpark (anthropology, nature of energy, nature of matter, nature of the solar system, galaxies and the universe).

Sometimes there are enough guesses from enough philosophers that someone somewhere, if you interpret the words loosely, might claim to have got some aspect of the new paradigm right, but it's usually for the wrong reasons. It's just probability, not a genius insight. And they're the exceptions.

395. Susan Blackmore interviews Dan Dennett

Comment #58315 by Rtambree on July 24, 2007 at 11:48 am

22. Comment #58314 by the_assayer

>He is among the very few philosophers who try to find naturalistic explanations for the phenomenon.

I don't think Dennett is in a position to find any explanations as he doesn't do any research. He's not even a good summariser and communicator of other people's research, let alone having any original contributions himself.

At best he can rephrase the questions, and as you say, help overcome our intuitive convictions. What else? Politically he's been a respectable ally in the New Atheism. But I don't think he's illuminating any mysteries.

396. Susan Blackmore interviews Dan Dennett

Comment #58313 by Rtambree on July 24, 2007 at 11:33 am

18. Comment #58304 by LDmiller on July 24, 2007 at 10:42 am

>I found this interview to be practically content-free.

Yes, I agree with your sentiments. That's the problem not just with Dennett but most philosophers. Knowledge doesn't come out of philosophy - only questions.

I once gave his "Consciousness Explained" a go. I struggled through it about 10 years ago at a time when I thought I was the one at fault for not grasping the deep intellectual points. Now I know better - there were few new points to be grasped. Now I generally stick with scientists who can write clearly and load their articles/books full of content: Diamond, Ridley, Dawkins, Sapolsky, Pinker, Koch, etc.

The only philosopher I really have time for is Peter Singer.

397. Red Mosque Fueled Islamic Fire in Young Women

Comment #58309 by Rtambree on July 24, 2007 at 11:22 am

25. Comment #58308 by roach on

>I wonder, would I be an adherent of Islam and support suicide bombing if I had been born in the Middle East to Muslim parents? I'd like to think not. But that's probably untrue.

That's a philosophical question. Then you wouldn't be you. It's similar to "If I was growing up in 1930s Germany, would I have accepted a prestigious well-paid promotion to oversee a concentration camp?"

It also leads to another question - what are we unquestioningly accepting today that'll be looked upon differently in the future (attitudes to environment, poverty, suffering, politicians we vote for, corporations we work for, etc).

But back to your original question - I wonder what percentage of atheists exist in the Muslim world. Obviously they can't admit it if they live in Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc, but surely there must be some closet ones. The higher the percentage the more likely that you'd be one of them if you grew up in the Muslim world.

Judging by the USA, it might be low. If an affluent western modern country like the USA can see atheism rates of somewhere between 3 - 10% (depending on the poll), then surely a poor, insular, totalitarian, theocratic society would be far less than 3%.

398. God '08: Whose, and How Much, Will Voters Accept?

Comment #57966 by Rtambree on July 22, 2007 at 5:20 pm

I'd be interested to know how many American atheists on this site voted for a religious candidate (e.g. Bush, Gore, Kerry) instead of an irreligious candidate (e.g. Nader) in the last two elections.

399. Can the rest of us have our planet back?

Comment #57720 by Rtambree on July 20, 2007 at 6:29 pm

That was good, especially the way he gave equal time to all three Abrahamic faiths.

Notch up another one for the New Atheism: Stand Up and be counted.

400. All the mistakes of the godly are merely metaphor

Comment #57717 by Rtambree on July 20, 2007 at 5:44 pm

37. Comment #57715 by windfall

You're right - Pinker's a superb clear writer across a range of issues. And he has won a few atheist-related awards, including last year's Humanist of the Year, and this award...

http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/articles/media/2004_10_29_religion.htm