Wednesday, August 22, 2007 | Reason : Science of Religion | print version

Scientists should unite against threat from religion

by Sam Harris, Nature

Reposted from:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v448/n7156/full/448864a.html

It was genuinely alarming to encounter Ziauddin Sardar's whitewash of Islam in the pages of your journal ('Beyond the troubled relationship' Nature 448, 131–133; 2007). Here, as elsewhere, Nature's coverage of religion has been unfailingly tactful — to the point of obscurantism.

In his Commentary, Sardar seems to accept, at face value, the claim that Islam constitutes an "intrinsically rational world view". Perhaps there are occasions where public intellectuals must proclaim the teachings of Islam to be perfectly in harmony with scientific naturalism. But let us not do so, just yet, in the world's foremost scientific journal.

Under the basic teachings of Islam, the Koran cannot be challenged or contradicted, being the perfect word of the creator of the Universe. To speak of the compatibility of science and Islam in 2007 is rather like speaking of the compatibility of science and Christianity in the year 1633, just as Galileo was being forced, under threat of death, to recant his understanding of the Earth's motion.

An Editorial announcing the publication of Francis Collins's book, The Language of God ('Building bridges' Nature 442, 110; doi:10.1038/442110a 2006) represents another instance of high-minded squeamishness in addressing the incompatibility of faith and reason. Nature praises Collins, a devout Christian, for engaging "with people of faith to explore how science — both in its mode of thought and its results — is consistent with their religious beliefs".

But here is Collins on how he, as a scientist, finally became convinced of the divinity of Jesus Christ: "On a beautiful fall day, as I was hiking in the Cascade Mountains... the majesty and beauty of God's creation overwhelmed my resistance. As I rounded a corner and saw a beautiful and unexpected frozen waterfall, hundreds of feet high, I knew the search was over. The next morning, I knelt in the dewy grass as the sun rose and surrendered to Jesus Christ."

What does the "mode of thought" displayed by Collins have in common with science? The Language of God should have sparked gasping outrage from the editors at Nature. Instead, they deemed Collins's efforts "moving" and "laudable", commending him for building a "bridge across the social and intellectual divide that exists between most of US academia and the so-called heartlands."

At a time when Muslim doctors and engineers stand accused of attempting atrocities in the expectation of supernatural reward, when the Catholic Church still preaches the sinfulness of condom use in villages devastated by AIDS, when the president of the United States repeatedly vetoes the most promising medical research for religious reasons, much depends on the scientific community presenting a united front against the forces of unreason.

There are bridges and there are gangplanks, and it is the business of journals such as Nature to know the difference.

http://www.samharris.org

Add to del.icio.us Posted: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 97 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #64923 by Nick6742 on August 22, 2007 at 11:48 am

Sam is right, it's disgraceful that Nature doesn't know better.

Other Comments by Nick6742

2. Comment #64924 by BAEOZ on August 22, 2007 at 11:59 am

It seems there's a lot of this bowing before religion BS.

Other Comments by BAEOZ

3. Comment #64926 by tieInterceptor on August 22, 2007 at 12:06 pm

Go Harris go!

we need to stand our ground... I've seen many of the 'miracle in the Quran' youtube videos that I understand Sam's point perfectly,

They take the Quran and after selective interpretation + poetic reading and carefully selected 'translations' state that it has prior knowledge of the big bang, atomic theory and all the science that we know more or less...

It's infuriating, not only it is insulting to the men and women that really did this amazing scientific discovery ... Is that you run into so many bigots in the internet that repeat this claims as the undeniable proof of the Quran... again and again and again.

example, three translations of the same passage that apparently shows prior knowledge of the big bang.

Quran, (51:47)

And We have spread out the (spacious) earth: How excellently We do spread out!
translated by YUSUFALI

And the earth have We laid out, how gracious is the Spreader (thereof)!
translated by PICKTHAL

And the earth, We have made it a wide extent; how well have We then spread (it) out.
translated by SHAKIR

if you look for Quran 51:47 the first link in google goes to a "Quran And Science" web page, and this is how they translated it.

And the firmament (sky) We constructed with power and skill and verily We are expanding it."
(Qur'an, 51:47)

less, spreading... (flat earth) and more expanding, like expanding universe ...

and this is the Miraculous 7th century revelation of the big bang.

Awesome stuff,

if you are 5 years old.

Other Comments by tieInterceptor

4. Comment #64928 by Robert Maynard on August 22, 2007 at 12:13 pm

"There are bridges and there are gangplanks, and it is the business of journals such as Nature to know the difference."

Bickety-bam.
Tssss, ya burn'd!
etc..

Nice to hear from Sam again, even if only in letters to editors.

Other Comments by Robert Maynard

5. Comment #64929 by Corylus on August 22, 2007 at 12:17 pm

TieInterceptor

Hadn't heard that argument before.

Sure it's not a reference to fertilizer? I spread earth (and other fragrant substances) over my vegetable patch every year.

Other Comments by Corylus

6. Comment #64930 by BicycleRepairMan on August 22, 2007 at 12:18 pm

actually they usually use 21:30 for the Big bang "revelation":

Creation [21:30-33]
Have not the unbelievers then beheld that the heavens and the earth were a mass all sewn up, and then We unstitched them and of water fashioned every living thing? Will they not believe? And We set in the earth firm mountains lest it should shake with them, and We set in it ravines to serve as ways, that haply so they may be guided; and We set up the heaven as a roof well-protected; yet still from Our signs they are turning away. It is He who created the night and the day, the sun and the moon, each swimming in a sky.

This is claimed to refer to the singularity that exploded. And again, as in nearly every verse the disdain and contempt for the unbelievers are again repeated..

Other Comments by BicycleRepairMan

7. Comment #64938 by Deoradh on August 22, 2007 at 12:47 pm

51:47 We built the heaven with our might, giving it a vast expanse, and stretched the earth beneath it - translated by N.J. Dawood

Another one for the list, also who is "We"?

Other Comments by Deoradh

8. Comment #64939 by Bizarro Dawkins on August 22, 2007 at 12:51 pm

"To speak of the compatibility of science and Islam in 2007 is rather like speaking of the compatibility of science and Christianity in the year 1633, just as Galileo was being forced, under threat of death, to recant his understanding of the Earth's motion."

I'm not quite sure that Sam is safe using this argument, especially considering the numerous cases involving those who doubt certain other so-called "scientific" paradigms being forced, not under threat of death but rather of academic homicide, to keep quite about their intellectual convictions. Galileo dared to challenge the beliefs accepted by the experts of his day, and he faced persecution. The exact same situation exists today except that rather than being burned at the stake, those who doubt evolution are simply ridiculed into silence or risk losing their careers at the hands of bullies such as Dawkins and friends.

"What does the "mode of thought" displayed by Collins have in common with science?"

It's called "reasoning". It is when a human assimilates experiences into meaningful conclusions and beliefs. Granted, science is indeed restricted to the confines of nature and the physical laws, but it is my conviction that a truly comprehensive and accurate understanding of science ultimately leads one to the conclusion that the physical world is a contingent entity, and could not exist without the force of will of a higher power.

"…when the Catholic Church still preaches the sinfulness of condom use in villages devastated by AIDS."

Punching the straw-man again are we? Mr. Harris should know better. Philosophers are supposed to be masters of logic and reason, but here we have someone committing one of the oldest and overused fallacies in the book! Yes, the Catholic Church, of which I am not a part, does preach the sinfulness of condom use. However, that is only one part of the story. The church also preaches abstinence, which is obviously many times more effective than condoms at reducing one's chance of getting the AIDS virus.

Now I've heard it argued that people will have sex either way, so it's better that they do it with a condom. Baloney. I'm a 20 year old guy, and I've had more than a few opportunities to let my hormones do the thinking. Thankfully, humans are not animals. We can choose to repress our instincts. I'm still a virgin. Sure, it hasn't been easy, but I've chosen to wait until I am married. And trust me, if a 20 year old male can do it, anyone can do it ;-).

Other Comments by Bizarro Dawkins

9. Comment #64941 by Duff on August 22, 2007 at 12:55 pm

"We set up the heaven as a roof well protected." If you want proof that the Quran is the word of god you have it right there. It is proof positive that the sky is a roof over the world, just as man has always believed...er,.. well, the sky is a roof over the world, isn't it? Isn't it? Did some smart aleck go and prove that wrong, too. Drat. Well, at least we know that it was "He" who created the world. Right?

Other Comments by Duff

10. Comment #64942 by tieInterceptor on August 22, 2007 at 12:59 pm

BycicleRepiairMan, they use both check it out

http://www.quranm.multicom.ba/science/5e-mlivo.htm

http://www.quranm.multicom.ba/science/2e-quran.htm

and Bizarro, abstinence only? nice one... that doesn't even work for priests, get out.

it's like preaching water abstinence to fight dysentery... 100% effective too.

.

Other Comments by tieInterceptor

11. Comment #64943 by BillySands on August 22, 2007 at 1:05 pm

Now I've heard it argued that people will have sex either way, so it's better that they do it with a condom. Baloney. I'm a 20 year old guy, and I've had more than a few opportunities to let my hormones do the thinking. Thankfully, humans are not animals. We can choose to repress our instincts. I'm still a virgin. Sure, it hasn't been easy, but I've chosen to wait until I am married. And trust me, if a 20 year old male can do it, anyone can do it ;-).

What rubbish. Humans are animals. Are you really implying that we should all live the way you say? Another problem is that you are only in charge of your own sexual activity, and not that of your partners. Do you think the "faithful" should suffer for the "sins" of others? What a truely retarded way of thinking. Have you considered the possibility that you are not attracted to women?

I'm still waiting to hear how you explain chickens with teeth

Other Comments by BillySands

12. Comment #64944 by BAEOZ on August 22, 2007 at 1:08 pm

Biz:

but it is my conviction that a truly comprehensive and accurate understanding of science ultimately leads one to the conclusion that the physical world is a contingent entity, and could not exist without the force of will of a higher power.

Wishful thinking doesn't count as reason. Follow the evidence, not emotions.

The church also preaches abstinence, which is obviously many times more effective than condoms at reducing one's chance of getting the AIDS virus.

Yep, it's that simple isn't it. A wife can just say no to a husband who's been banging prostitutes with aids can't she? He will understand and not force her anyway just cause he's horny and the church says she must obey him. Maybe if he'd used condoms with the pros or her, aids wouldn't spread. But whilst idiot cardinals, who don't understand nature, tell all that they should just keep it in their pants and that condoms are bad, we'll not have this check on the spread of sexually transmitted diseases in believers.

We can choose to repress our instincts. I'm still a virgin. Sure, it hasn't been easy, but I've chosen to wait until I am married. And trust me, if a 20 year old male can do it, anyone can do it ;-).

That explains your attitude. Repression, pure and simple. Just because we're human and not animal doesn't mean sex is bad. Sex outside of marriage between two consenting adults who aren't in other relationships, like college students out for a bang, is very healthy and fun. It doesn't lead to anger and frustration, because while you can deny nature, you can't avoid its effects and they'll twist and turn you.

Other Comments by BAEOZ

13. Comment #64945 by roach on August 22, 2007 at 1:09 pm

Chastity is the second most overrated virtue right after faith.

Other Comments by roach

14. Comment #64947 by Corylus on August 22, 2007 at 1:17 pm

I have a little post it note on the side of my PC monitor. It reads:

"Do not use when pissed!"

It is great. I (sometimes) see it through the mist and it stop me doing silly things like adding software when I have other programmes running or buying crap I don't need off Ebay. It also stops me making on line revelations that I might later regret...

Biz, I am not going to comment on the statement you have just made, because it is none of my business.

You can still delete if you are quick ;)

Other Comments by Corylus

15. Comment #64949 by tieInterceptor on August 22, 2007 at 1:19 pm

"roach: Chastity is the second most overrated virtue right after faith."

and dangerous, sometimes does motivate a few sex starved people to blow themselves up to get a-lot-a-vagina in the after life.

Bizarro Dawkins wrote: I'm a 20 year old guy, and I've had more than a few opportunities to let my hormones do the thinking. Thankfully, humans are not animals. We can choose to repress our instincts. I'm still a virgin. Sure, it hasn't been easy, but I've chosen to wait until I am married. And trust me, if a 20 year old male can do it, anyone can do it ;-).

just in case he edits ;)

Other Comments by tieInterceptor

16. Comment #64950 by BillySands on August 22, 2007 at 1:20 pm

One of my friends stayed celibate till his wedding night, but it was drove him nuts. It is not healthy or normal. If thats the way you want to live, fair enough, but dont tell others they are wrong. Especially if you are a 20 year old virgin who has hever got his sausage wet

and dangerous, sometimes does motivate a few sex starved people to blow themselves up to get a-lot-a-vagina in the after life.

Lets not forget sex crimes committed by some catholic priests either

Other Comments by BillySands

17. Comment #64952 by nothing on August 22, 2007 at 1:28 pm

Is Bizzaro for real? Or just an atheist satirist playing around? Maybe his name is a clue?

Other Comments by nothing

18. Comment #64953 by Doug Indeap on August 22, 2007 at 1:30 pm

Bravo! Sam makes an excellent point with characteristic brevity and wit. As often as otherwise rational people speak of the beauty of the emperor's clothes, we need to point out that he wears none. Those caught going along with the silliness may be embarrassed when the nonsense of their utterances is revealed, and that is fine—they should be embarrassed, and learn from the experience not to spout nonsense simply to "go along to get along."

Bizarro, the "mode of thought" displayed by Collins--and you in your assimilation discussion—does not remotely resemble "reasoning." Don't take my word for it; look it up. Just calling a mode of thought "reasoning" does not make it so.

Other Comments by Doug Indeap

19. Comment #64960 by Yorker on August 22, 2007 at 1:49 pm

8. Comment #64939 by Bizarro Dawkins

"I'm still a virgin. Sure, it hasn't been easy, but I've chosen to wait until I am married. And trust me, if a 20 year old male can do it, anyone can do it ;-)."

Holy shit! is that what religion does to a young man? Now I'm really glad to have been a lifelong atheist, you must be "King of The Wankers", Biz! One of my fondest memories of that time over forty years ago is the delight I had in seeking out compliant young ladies to regale and impale! Alas, I admit the flames of ardour in me are now just glowing embers, I no longer have a wife but I'm not dead yet. (ladies take note) :)

I can't help picturing your future wedding night where you proudly confess your virginity and your wife confesses an already lengthy sexual experience! How will you respond?

Oh, and I'm disappointed in Nature and agree with Harris. I think Collins is simply loony, clever perhaps, but that's no guarantee against being loony. I'm not big on the so-called compartmentalisation idea, slightly nuts is more accurate I think.

Other Comments by Yorker

20. Comment #64961 by Quetzalcoatl on August 22, 2007 at 1:55 pm

Bizarro-

The church also preaches abstinence, which is obviously many times more effective than condoms at reducing one's chance of getting the AIDS virus

At the risk of sounding sarcastic- YEAH, because abstinence has been SUCH a success in the US, hasn't it? Particularly the Bible Belt. I believe the states with the highest number of religious also have the highest instances of teen pregnancy. And WHY? Because nothing but abstinence is taught. As a result, when teenagers do what comes naturally, none of them know the first thing about contraception. And nine months later.....

Thankfully, humans are not animals. We can choose to repress our instincts

Of course humans are animals! What the hell else would we be? Plants? And yes, we can repress our instincts, but it never works out very well.

Corylus-

Biz, I am not going to comment on the statement you have just made, because it is none of my business.

Corylus, I admire your restraint! But when Biz puts a comment on a public forum, he makes it our business.

Perhaps I need one of those post-it notes.....

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

21. Comment #64966 by captain underpants on August 22, 2007 at 1:59 pm

More words of wisdom from Bizarro

"... numerous cases involving those who doubt certain other so-called "scientific" paradigms being forced, not under threat of death but rather of academic homicide, to keep quite about their intellectual convictions."

Concrete example, please.

"... rather than being burned at the stake, those who doubt evolution are simply ridiculed into silence or risk losing their careers at the hands of bullies such as Dawkins and friends."

Concrete example, please.

"... it is my conviction that a truly comprehensive and accurate understanding of science ultimately leads one to the conclusion that the physical world is a contingent entity, and could not exist without the force of will of a higher power."

You presumptuous little twat. What qualifies you to assert that scientists who do not believe in a higher power lack a truly comprehensive and accurate understanding of science? And you and your ilk have the gall to accuse atheists of being arrogant.

Other Comments by captain underpants

22. Comment #64968 by Icculus on August 22, 2007 at 2:06 pm

I think Nothing post #64952 is on to something. The name combined with the tone of the post also smacked of sarcasm to me.

Other Comments by Icculus

23. Comment #64971 by waxwings on August 22, 2007 at 2:10 pm

Is Bizarro Dawkins joking? Sorry, but Poe's Law makes it nearly impossible to distinguish a parody of apologetics from the real thing.

Other Comments by waxwings

24. Comment #64978 by steve99 on August 22, 2007 at 2:25 pm

The exact same situation exists today except that rather than being burned at the stake, those who doubt evolution are simply ridiculed into silence or risk losing their careers at the hands of bullies such as Dawkins and friends.

If only that were the case. Unfortunately people like Michael Behe continue to spout the same nonsense even in the face of clear evidence that what they say is factually wrong. You share the same trait I am afraid.

Here is an example:

If you look at the facts, you will see that preaching abstinence is a very poor method of controlling AIDS, as people just take no notice.
Sure, abstinence is very good at preventing AIDS, but it is just isn't what people do.

We can choose to repress our instincts. I'm still a virgin. Sure, it hasn't been easy, but I've chosen to wait until I am married. And trust me, if a 20 year old male can do it, anyone can do it ;-)

Yet another argument from personal experience. Evidently not everyone CAN do it.

Other Comments by steve99

25. Comment #64979 by bluebird on August 22, 2007 at 2:26 pm

'Tis surprising, and disheartening to read this about 'Nature'.

I cringe everytime I see B.D's profanatory moniker (not to mention the posts, esp. this one).

Other Comments by bluebird

26. Comment #64986 by Yorker on August 22, 2007 at 3:06 pm

"it is my conviction that a truly comprehensive and accurate understanding of science ultimately leads one to the conclusion that the physical world is a contingent entity, and could not exist without the force of will of a higher power."

Bizarro,

You really are a wanker, and not just in the sexual sense. You're 20; you can't possibly know what the hell you're talking about with that statement!

We are stupendously lucky being born into this beautiful and wondrous Universe, I see it the duty of each one of us to learn as much as we can about it and exult in our humanity. I have seen and done many things in this life that followers of your pathetic imaginary god would consider sinful, yet I've never even been arrested. I see all religites as life-wasters, worse still; they want to make me waste my life also.

Let's pretend for an insane moment that your God really exists. I cannot imagine why anyone would come into this world and throw their life away by becoming a slave to a petty arsehole who demands to be worshipped and threatens us with silly post-life punishment. What a useless demeaning existence! I bow to no man and wouldn't even dream of bowing to a non-existent god that is clearly the construct of other men; as Carlin says, they really must be men; no woman would come up with such a childish transparent bullshit story! Sometimes I wish your God did exist and would judge me after death, I'd really like to get my hands round his fucking neck!

The fact is that you and I are both going to die and will cease to exist; the good part is that non-existence means we'll never even know we once lived! Now isn't that marvelous? What more could one ask for? It sure beats the hell out of spending trillions of years in heaven wishing you'd poked a few more ladies when you were young!

Do yourself a favour; dump that dozy school, get a grip on reality and enjoy the only life you're ever going to have.

Other Comments by Yorker

27. Comment #64989 by TorontoTim on August 22, 2007 at 3:10 pm

In response to Bizarro's "revelation" that he is a virgin, Billy Sands said:

"Have you considered the possibility that you are not attracted to women?"

Billy, it seems to me that your comment is either somewhat homophobic (by saying, as an implied insult, that he's gay) or inadvertently incomplete (since to account for his being a virgin you'd have to ask whether he's attracted to neither women nor men).

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that it's the latter. Please tell me I'm right.

Other Comments by TorontoTim

28. Comment #64991 by 42nd on August 22, 2007 at 3:13 pm

Punching the straw-man again are we? Mr. Harris should know better. Philosophers are supposed to be masters of logic and reason, but here we have someone committing one of the oldest and overused fallacies in the book! Yes, the Catholic Church, of which I am not a part, does preach the sinfulness of condom use. However, that is only one part of the story. The church also preaches abstinence, which is obviously many times more effective than condoms at reducing one's chance of getting the AIDS virus.

Now I've heard it argued that people will have sex either way, so it's better that they do it with a condom. Baloney. I'm a 20 year old guy, and I've had more than a few opportunities to let my hormones do the thinking. Thankfully, humans are not animals. We can choose to repress our instincts. I'm still a virgin. Sure, it hasn't been easy, but I've chosen to wait until I am married. And trust me, if a 20 year old male can do it, anyone can do it ;-).

now, that makes as much sense as saying that since I haven't driven a car in 20 years or so, seatbelts should be banned. You can say that sex is immoral, while driving is ok, but first you need to prove that. Now you may think that science can't say anything about morality, but I have one word for you (ok, two words) : GAME THEORY

Other Comments by 42nd

29. Comment #64995 by dazzjazz on August 22, 2007 at 3:19 pm

I wonder what made Collins surrender to Jesus instead of one of the many other 'offerings' on the celestial smorgasboard? Perhaps the waterfall had frozen in the shape of a cross and was melting tears of blood?

Other Comments by dazzjazz

30. Comment #64998 by tieInterceptor on August 22, 2007 at 3:21 pm

one, thing is certain,

Bizarro sure knows how to steer away a conversation...

I thought the topic was the funny Muslims and their 7th century book, that if you pull half cooked translations and squint your eyes, you could find passages that say something vaguely related to any current scientific knowledge.

and it is always current science, funny how they did not know about the big bang before, the info was there for the last 1428 years for everyone to see... how did they miss it until now?

Other Comments by tieInterceptor

31. Comment #65002 by Teapot_Believer on August 22, 2007 at 3:27 pm

Comment #64939 by Bizarro Dawkins on August 22, 2007 at 12:51 pm

"I'm not quite sure that Sam is safe using this argument, especially considering the numerous cases involving those who doubt certain other so-called "scientific" paradigms being forced, not under threat of death but rather of academic homicide, to keep quite about their intellectual convictions. Galileo dared to challenge the beliefs accepted by the experts of his day, and he faced persecution. The exact same situation exists today except that rather than being burned at the stake, those who doubt evolution are simply ridiculed into silence or risk losing their careers at the hands of bullies such as Dawkins and friends."

There is a really big difference between nowadays' ruling paradigms and those from the Middle Ages. Let me give you an example. During the good ol' days of Scholasticism, Astronomy held an important place among Aristotelian scholastics. They thought that the "known universe" at that time was divided into two. On the one hand, we have the world above the moon where, according to these people, things were celestial, perfect, unchanging, and close to God. On the other, we have the sub-lunar world where nothing is constant, where things change, grow, get corrupt, move and eventually rot. Influenced by Ptolemian astronomy, they believed that the Earth was at the very center of the universe.

Why did they hold these beliefs? Did they do any research to corroborate their assertions? The bottom line of this is that scholasticism, the ruling paradigm at that time, was based on authority, a criterion nowadays deemed a logical fallacy. Scholastics had no evidence whatsoever to firmly claim that the world beyond the moon was celestial and close to God.

Now you're saying that Dawkins and friends are like today's authoritative scholastics in the sense that they silence dissident academics in the same way scholastics suppressed people like Galileo. If this is true, it is like saying that the Theory of Evolution primarily relies on authoritative criteria. Let me tell you that it is neither Mr. Dawkins nor anyone else who decrees that Evolution is true and unquestionable, but the mutually corroborating evidence that has supported it. If the worst came to the worst (meaning that evidence definitely proved Evolution wrong and at the same time people like Dawkins continued to support it authoritatively), the scandal in the academic community would be enormous. Please imagine the foul consequences of this event.

Why does this theory still remain mainstream among most universities? Because of evidence; not authority or tradition, and this is why your parallelism is wrong. If the criticism coming from dissenting academics against Evolution was right, then the entire scientific community would adopt such views, no matter how weak-tempered those scientists are. Again, if the worst comes to the worst (meaning that Dawkins is definitely a bully who suppresses dissident views) your dissenting scientists must persist in pursuing their ideas. Does it make you angry when someone suppresses your ideas when you are strongly certain they are right, no matter how much others make fun of them? What does that anger trigger, determination or feebleness?

However, Mr. Dawkins is not a bully and I will tell you why. In his documentary "The Root of All Evil", he refers to an anecdote which took place in his undergraduate period (I think). An American professor came to England to deliver a lecture on a specific subject (I don't remember what it was). The point is that his lecture proved the ideas of one of Dawkins' teachers wrong. When the American professor finished his lecture, Dawkins' professor approach him and shook his hand saying: "I've been wrong all these years". I am completely sure that if Evolution was ever proved wrong, Dawkins would do the same thing.

Other Comments by Teapot_Believer

32. Comment #65003 by BillySands on August 22, 2007 at 3:35 pm

Toronto Tim
Rest assured that question was not intended to be homophobic. From previous comments, Bizzaro has shown himself to hold homophobic beliefs which is why I only enquired about women. It is a bit of an unjustified leap to go from not being attracted to women to being Gay.

Dazzjazz

I wonder what made Collins surrender to Jesus instead of one of the many other 'offerings' on the celestial smorgasboard? Perhaps the waterfall had frozen in the shape of a cross and was melting tears of blood?

Apparently it split int three parts and that reminded him of the trinity - Conclusive proof I'm sure you will agree

Other Comments by BillySands

33. Comment #65007 by phil rimmer on August 22, 2007 at 4:01 pm

"Do not use when pissed!"

LOL, Corylus. And one of the kinder posts here.

I've just put up my own copy.

Other Comments by phil rimmer

34. Comment #65014 by phil rimmer on August 22, 2007 at 4:14 pm

I bought Collin's book in an airport recently, to entertain me on the trip. It failed. But it entertained my fellow travelers as I threw it down in disgust every few pages.

Woefully, intellectually underpowered. The good bits were all C.S.Lewis quoted verbatim. His one chance of doing good by this hero of his was to explain how the latest science hadn't screwed up a lot of Lewis's ideas. He flunked out, badly. A man of very little breadth I fear...

Other Comments by phil rimmer

35. Comment #65016 by walk on August 22, 2007 at 4:15 pm

C'mon Bizzaro, that's 20 out of the last 25 posts exposing your illogical (bizzaro) views. We're waiting!

Other Comments by walk

36. Comment #65019 by Veronique on August 22, 2007 at 4:33 pm

Hi Yorker – How was Madagascar? Welcome home.

Like everyone here, I am not impressed with Nature journal. It's bad enough to have to cope with the dangers of religious moderates and fundamentalists out there, but to have the editors of such a journal as Nature accept non-scientific and religious articles, reviews and whatever is an appalling betrayal of the serious scientific community that works hard to present testable theories and adds to the sum total of our scientific knowledge.

I am really tempted, as a lay person, to write to Nature expressing my dismay at what appears to me to be further evidence of hijacking by the religites. Now Collins, a scientist, is using a scientific journal to propagate a book about his imaginary sky-god.

The editors of Nature need to be told this is unacceptable. Good on Sam Harris for his letter.

There is a certain argument to be made, indeed it has been made, for believers and non-believers to join forces and push back the tide of unreason, but bending over backwards (or forwards as Carlin would undoubtedly view it) in order to accommodate religion is most unwise and has ramifications that those editors obviously cannot see.

As soon as I saw Biz's post scroll onto my computer, my heart sank. Oh no! Here we go again. Please don't let this thread become a Biz bash. Post after post after post of nothing much being said at all. NOTHING is going to change his mindset. He trolls here without paying any dues to the site and diminishes the level of debate and comments. It has been going on for nearly a year. Sigh.

And good morning everyone:-).
V

Other Comments by Veronique

37. Comment #65022 by BillySands on August 22, 2007 at 4:46 pm

It has been going on for nearly a year. Sigh.

I suppose it helps him keep his hand out of his chastity belt

Goodnight

Other Comments by BillySands

38. Comment #65024 by Diplo on August 22, 2007 at 4:54 pm

You don't live in Africa. If you can't understand why that makes a difference look at the demographics, life expectancy and social basis of life in many African villages.

Other Comments by Diplo

39. Comment #65025 by Nails on August 22, 2007 at 4:54 pm

Here here Sam.
Religious blindness has no place in science or science journals - only a blind man sees the work of a god in nature's beauty.

31. Comment #65002 by Teapot_Believer on August 22, 2007 at 3:27 pm

However, Mr. Dawkins is not a bully and I will tell you why. In his documentary "The Root of All Evil", he refers to an anecdote which took place in his undergraduate period (I think). An American professor came to England to deliver a lecture on a specific subject (I don't remember what it was). The point is that his lecture proved the ideas of one of Dawkins' teachers wrong. When the American professor finished his lecture, Dawkins' professor approach him and shook his hand saying: "I've been wrong all these years". I am completely sure that if Evolution was ever proved wrong, Dawkins would do the same thing.

Also mentioned in one of his books, but I cannot remember which.
Golgi apperatus I think, maybe endoplasmic reticulum?

8. Comment #64939 by Bizarro Dawkins on August 22, 2007 at 12:51 pm

Thankfully, humans are not animals. We can choose to repress our instincts. I'm still a virgin. Sure, it hasn't been easy, but I've chosen to wait until I am married. And trust me, if a 20 year old male can do it, anyone can do it ;-).

The return of bizarro!!!
Bravo!!
Brought any overdue answers with you?
Thought not.

i won't attack you for your views on sexuality and sex, they are your own private business.
I lost my virginity at 15, it was great.
Still is. Can't get enough, me.

Anyway, Why are you defending the Koran?
Will you not live for ever in paradise if you attack it?
Or maybe you just fancy a dig at someone who is very unlikely to answer you....
Or even care what you think.

Cut to the chase, if abstinence was really that easy, we'd probably have become extinct many many (10,000+) years ago, as would many other species. Think of the panda.....

Other Comments by Nails

40. Comment #65026 by ? on August 22, 2007 at 4:58 pm

Bizzaro Dawkins--

My problem is not so much that the Church teaches that this sexual act or that sexual act is a sin. What makes me angry is that they politicize issues related to contraception and sexual minorities. This political agenda leads to the abuse of power and the undermining of the open society. It also whips up hateful attitudes among the public who listen to the religious leaders--the division of society into the "normal" "moral" people and the Other.

Christianity teaches that many things are sins, yet appatently some sinners get a free pass while others should be subject to all sorts of attack and discrimination.

There is a lot of anti-gay political and legal activism from Christian groups, but where is the political activism aganst (for instance) Christians who hardly ever go to church, Christians who are married to unbelievers, etc. Both of these things are condemned in the Bible, but no one is blaming hurricanes on people who sleep in on Sunday morning or proposing a "defense of marriage act" against interfaith couples. No shopping mall is threatened for promoting greed of coveteousness.

These (and many , many others) are generally considered private sins and the Church may criticize them in broad terms, but takes no concrete action against the people themselves. Why can't condom use, homosexuality, etc. be the same?

I don't believe that any of the behaviors I've mentioned above are wrong (maybe the greed in extreme cases!), but I freely recognize the right of any believer and any religious group to have any beleifs that make sense to them.

Lets leave the law out of private, consenting behavior, and focus on secular ideas like rights and contracts between free agents.

I know you weren't personally supporting any political activities in your posts on this thread, but given your admiration for Falwell and your defense of the policies of the even more powerful Vatican, I thought is was relevant. By all means, let the priests *preach* abstinance and non-condom use, but stop there and let people make up their own minds. And let the other point of view have equal access.

But the problem is that when it comes to (some)sexual issues, many religions seem to spend as much time and money lobbying governements to ban the things they oppose than convincing people that they are right.

Other Comments by ?

41. Comment #65038 by geckoman on August 22, 2007 at 5:21 pm

Bizarro

Waiting til you're married to have sex isn't a good idea.

As is tarditional in Scotland, on my wedding night my wife got so rat arsed she locked me out our hotel room. Accidentally, she claims. I had to get the manager to let me in. Obviously, I could have attempted a quick five knuckle shuffle in the corridor, or indeed the bathroom, when finally I got in, but by then that old romantic feeling had passed.

However, the fact that I had already played 'Captain wobbly hides his helmet' on previous occasions sustained me through this setback. You would have no such consolation; so don't say you haven't been warned.

Other Comments by geckoman

42. Comment #65039 by waxwings on August 22, 2007 at 5:34 pm

Seriously guys, I think Bizarro Dawkins is just acting retarded to get reactions. I mean look at the name.

Other Comments by waxwings

43. Comment #65041 by maton100 on August 22, 2007 at 5:48 pm

Collins is an emotionally giddy goon.

http://thestubborncurmudgeon.blogspot.com

Other Comments by maton100

44. Comment #65049 by Yorker on August 22, 2007 at 6:17 pm

36. Comment #65019 by Veronique

Hi Veronique, Thankyou, I had a very interesting time, incidentally I sent you a PM.

Re your comments.

I haven't seen Nature on a regular basis for some years but in the electronic research lab where I once worked, I always read it. As boss, I made sure it got delivered to my office first before it put it in the library (selfish bastard). It has always been a well respected scientific journal, perhaps the world's best and in my day religious writings never appeared in it. I'd be saddened if it sank into prick pandering.

You talk of Biz posts but I did notice on another thread that the trolling hooks of a weirdo named Darwin2 had sunk their barbs into quite a few willing snappers! Aha, not like me to wax poetically, I'll try it again sometime.

Other Comments by Yorker

45. Comment #65051 by Rieux on August 22, 2007 at 6:22 pm

C'mon Bizzaro, that's 20 out of the last 25 posts exposing your illogical (bizzaro) views.

I'm sorry, but I don't think the adjective "illogical" does BD's comment justice.

Responding to a continent-wide pandemic that has visited unspeakable, and unbelievable, death and suffering on well over one hundred million innocent people with "Aw hell, I kin keep it in m'pants! ;)" does not deserve to be called "illogical." How about "obscene," "disgusting," or "stunningly callous and inhuman"? This person is depraved.

Other Comments by Rieux

46. Comment #65053 by kaiserkriss on August 22, 2007 at 6:32 pm

Bizarro strikes again, and we ALL fall for the bait.. (Was it the details of his non existent sex life that piqued everyone's interest??)

This thread, if I remember correctly was about Sam Harris lambasting the editorial staff of Nature for putting a positive spin on a book that will probably become a compulsory text book at Lehigh University...

Good for Sam for calling a "spade a spade" and pointing out the deficiencies not only in the book, but also of the editorial dunderheads at Nature, who should probably move on to writing editorial book reviews for The Watch Tower and Readers Digest. jcw

Other Comments by kaiserkriss

47. Comment #65079 by PeterK on August 22, 2007 at 8:59 pm

Other Comments by PeterK

48. Comment #65083 by zarcus on August 22, 2007 at 9:25 pm

After reading the July 13, 2006 editorial presented in Nature, I wondered how well Sam Harris remember the piece.

Sam Harris Wrote:

When the Catholic Church still preaches the sinfulness of condom use in villages devastated by AIDS, when the president of the United States repeatedly vetoes the most promising medical research for religious reasons, much depends on the scientific community presenting a united front against the forces of unreason.

There are bridges and there are gangplanks, and it is the business of journals such as Nature to know the difference.

Some words shared above seem to echo the Nature editorial.

Nature;

To many scientist, religious contributions to public debates are threatening and ill-considered. Religious leaders speak out against entire lines of enquiry – such as work on embryonic stem cells – in the name of God. They take stands against life-saving practices, such as condom use in areas of high HIV infection, in the name of morality.

Also, this is the final paragraph for the editorial.

Nature;

Collins is reaching out, from an exalted position in the world of science, to the realm of faith. By exploring, not least, how the Human Genome Project has added to our understanding of evolution, he hopes to provide a bridge across the social and intellectual divide that exists between most of US academia and the so-called heartlands, where religion is writ so large. Given the scale of the gulf, that is a laudable ambition.

I fail to see why Sam would tell Nature, or scientist in general;

"The Language of God should have sparked gasping outrage from the editors at Nature.."

Gasping outrage? Asking for a united front from scientist is a worthy aspiration. Simply assuming from a rather personal science book by Francis Collins, the director of the US National Human Genome Research Institute, is a call for gasping outrage, is an absence in recognizing there are other scientist who are also Religionist. Who have every right to try and foster a better understanding of science to a community they recognize as their own. A community desperately in need for such an approach. Instead of the naysayers the Nature editorial points out.

Also, the editorial does not mention the Collins quote Sam highlight's of Collins' personal revelation. I submit that Sam is being misleading, and condescending for no apparent reason other then he has personal reasons to do so.

Other Comments by zarcus

49. Comment #65087 by Ben Jennings on August 22, 2007 at 9:44 pm

Bizarre Dork wrote:
"We can choose to repress our instincts. I'm still a virgin. Sure, it hasn't been easy"

My guess is that remaining a virgin has actually been a great deal easier for you than you'd like to admit.

"but I've chosen to wait until I am married."

Of course you have. ;-)

Other Comments by Ben Jennings

50. Comment #65092 by robotaholic on August 22, 2007 at 10:11 pm

is it me or is the quoran/koran/ko-rant more retarded that the bible? - well on the scale of retardedness koran is above the bible but of course they're both freakin' stupid

these girls came into my store all dressed in dresses on SUNDAY of course - i had the nerve to say "where are you all coming from today?" and she said "oh we're church hopping". i said well you should ask each preacher how many souls they've 'saved' and just go to the church who saved the most people" - she just looked at me and glared

i don't believe in invisible persons with magical powers - if i did, i would put my trust in the fantastic four -

Other Comments by robotaholic