1. Comment #71651 by RickM on September 19, 2007 at 12:15 pm

Interesting. RD starts out with a strong lead.

Other Comments by RickM

2. Comment #71653 by bruce on September 19, 2007 at 12:18 pm

I actually feel a little sorry for Collins because this is one of those "no contest" things that really shouldn't even be fought in the first place because one of the contestants is so weak that it isn't a fair fight. But I guess if you write a book spouting off about such nonsense then you probably deserve what you get.

Other Comments by bruce

3. Comment #71668 by Quiddam on September 19, 2007 at 12:37 pm

I'd like to see a definition of God first. If they mean "The God of the Bible/Q'ran/Torah" then it's Dawkins all the way. If they mean some vague Deist type God who takes no interest and does not impinge on the natural world but through some mysterious process created time and space, then such a thing is indeed impossible to disprove. All one can say is that it's unlikely and unnecessary.

Other Comments by Quiddam

4. Comment #71680 by Promii on September 19, 2007 at 12:58 pm

Some of the comments are amusing.

"God is outside nature and immune to evidence or he would not be god"

"That's circular logic!"

"It's not circular, it's self-evident!"

heh

Other Comments by Promii

5. Comment #71681 by Quine on September 19, 2007 at 12:59 pm

Yes, but "some vague Deist type God" is useless to control other people's lives.

Other Comments by Quine

6. Comment #71683 by JemyM on September 19, 2007 at 12:59 pm

As far as I concern, science is enough to disprove the existence of Adam, Abraham and Exodus. So what god are we talking about?

Other Comments by JemyM

7. Comment #71689 by sane1 on September 19, 2007 at 1:12 pm

Kinda stupid and non-scientific really. I voted anyway.

Other Comments by sane1

8. Comment #71700 by jefft0 on September 19, 2007 at 1:51 pm

Are the short quotes from Collins and Dawkins all there is? Or is there a link to another longer article where they are actually debating?

Other Comments by jefft0

9. Comment #71706 by trgregory on September 19, 2007 at 2:06 pm

There is no god, thank god!

Other Comments by trgregory

10. Comment #71709 by The_Stone on September 19, 2007 at 2:10 pm

If god is outside nature, hence outside our universe, then what good is the existence of a god?

God's existence is only useful if it interacts with nature and our universe, and when it does, science can measure it. So far science measures nil for god.

Considering each and every religion has mutually conflicting views of god and its role in the universe, id say even a "universal" god (no pun intended) is also out of the question.

How a guy can study DNA and understand how it has developed over the eons, can manage to also believe in a god is truly strange. Shows how some people compartmentalize their knowledge, and apparently refuse or are unable to see beyond their limited world view.

Other Comments by The_Stone

11. Comment #71713 by marshall1 on September 19, 2007 at 2:14 pm

Of course, this is all pretty un-scientific, weak and almost not worth doing, but I voted anyway.

I was watching a Richard Dawkins interview and he explained to the interviewer that he first realized there was no God when he was 14 years old! He might be a pretty smart guy, but how could he have had the information to make that decision at 14? Sounds like he just decided there was no God and everything he has learned since that point has bolstered a decision he had already made.

Christians, on the other hand seem passionate about what they believe and are offering something that atheists aren't....purpose. That seems like an extremely important component to just leave out.

I went to several Christian blog sites before posting this message and I couldn't find the word atheist, dawkins or agnostic anywhere. Yet here, it seems every word that is typed is intended to attack people of faith... That is very telling, don't you think?

Other Comments by marshall1

12. Comment #71717 by wallace on September 19, 2007 at 2:25 pm

Most religious people made the decision to believe in God before they were 14.

Plenty of Christian web sites mention atheism and Dawkins. Some are even obsessed with him. http://ship-of-fools.com/

I don't remeber Richard Dawkins ever saying life had no purpose.

Other Comments by wallace

13. Comment #71720 by marshall1 on September 19, 2007 at 2:32 pm

just curious, what is the purpose as defined by Dawkins?

Other Comments by marshall1

14. Comment #71724 by wallace on September 19, 2007 at 2:39 pm

Read him and find out.

Other Comments by wallace

15. Comment #71725 by Roland32 on September 19, 2007 at 2:40 pm

Marshall,

In terms of realizing there is no God at the age of 14 to be presumptuous statement by Dawkins, is in fact an ignorant statement by yourself of what atheism is. Concluding that there is not enough evidence, is just that. However, if the claim was that there is not enough evidence and I currently know all the evidence would be a presumptuous statement for a 14 year old, or anyage for that matter, statement to make.

As far as your last statement is concerned. mThis is a leading statement, provided with inferior or misguided information. Kind of reminds me of the no spin zone. But leading statements are very useful in revealing purpose, which in this case, revealed your intent behind your post. Which was to to introduce your preconceived notions of how one can become an atheist can only be to assume what you cannot know. Which of course is inaccurate statement, actually completely illogical when confronted with a proper defintion of atheism.

Other Comments by Roland32

16. Comment #71726 by marshall1 on September 19, 2007 at 2:41 pm

you dont feel like sharing the information with me? Or do you not know?

Other Comments by marshall1

17. Comment #71727 by jorgepolak on September 19, 2007 at 2:42 pm

> I was watching a Richard Dawkins interview and he explained to the interviewer that he first realized there was no God when he was 14 years old! He might be a pretty smart guy, but how could he have had the information to make that decision at 14?

He had enough information to decide that leprechauns, Santa Claus, fairies didn't exist either because he saw no evidence for it. Why not God?

> Christians, on the other hand seem passionate about what they believe and are offering something that atheists aren't....purpose. That seems like an extremely important component to just leave out.

Let's assume for a second that an atheist is a purposeless, morose, shell of a human being. So what? Just because Christians have a purpose doesn't mean god exists. Muslims, Hindus, Janists, worshipers of Amen Ra all have a purpose too. They can't all be right, can they?. Religion is the extreme in narcissism - I have a purpose, the universe was designed around me, I am the image of the creator, etc. Yet it is the atheist who acknowledges the relative meaninglessness of his existence that gets to be called arrogant.

> I went to several Christian blog sites before posting this message and I couldn't find the word atheist, dawkins or agnostic anywhere. Yet here, it seems every word that is typed is intended to attack people of faith... That is very telling, don't you think?

If you consider an argument as an "attack" then tough rocks. Grow a thicker skin. Flying a plane into a building is an attack. A logical argument or a picture of your prophet is not.

Other Comments by jorgepolak

18. Comment #71729 by Nefrubyr on September 19, 2007 at 2:45 pm

The first round was a bit difficult, because they both made quite reasonable statements. However, Collins forfeited the round by attacking a straw man, while Dawkins made a salient point.

Other Comments by Nefrubyr

19. Comment #71730 by The_Stone on September 19, 2007 at 2:45 pm

Why do people need to be GIVEN a "purpose"? Makes more sense, and its much more fulfilling to find one's purpose as a matter of personal introspection.

Religion seems to be the lazy man's philosophy, wherein its prepackaged hierarchy and doctrine are ready to stupefy any willing beleiver.

Other Comments by The_Stone

20. Comment #71732 by marshall1 on September 19, 2007 at 2:46 pm

Roland32, Call me ignorant, that is no problem. I am actually on a fact finding mission here.

Atheism, from what I can tell claims that there is NO GOD. Am I wrong about that?

My point about the age of Dawkins decisions is just that it seems both sides do the same thing. Accept something on faith and then make the information confirm that decision. It seems both are relying on the faith of their initial decision.

Other Comments by marshall1

21. Comment #71734 by Goldy on September 19, 2007 at 2:49 pm

I was watching a Richard Dawkins interview and he explained to the interviewer that he first realized there was no God when he was 14 years old! He might be a pretty smart guy, but how could he have had the information to make that decision at 14? Sounds like he just decided there was no God and everything he has learned since that point has bolstered a decision he had already made.

He waited that long? Hmmm, I'm pretty sure I was younger.
Love to know what this purpose is. Knocking on my door asking me if I found God/Jesus?

Other Comments by Goldy

22. Comment #71735 by steve99 on September 19, 2007 at 2:49 pm

If god is outside nature, hence outside our universe, then what good is the existence of a god?

This is such a common idea, but is utterly bizarre. There is this infinite, all-powerful being who created everything and and is omnipotent, but as soon as anyone actually goes looking for Him he runs off and hides in some other dimension or reality like a timid faun. Maybe He is just incredibly shy...

Other Comments by steve99

23. Comment #71737 by Goldy on September 19, 2007 at 2:51 pm

Atheism, from what I can tell claims that there is NO GOD. Am I wrong about that?

No gods. And no need to capitalise.

Other Comments by Goldy

24. Comment #71738 by maton100 on September 19, 2007 at 2:53 pm

HA!!@!

Other Comments by maton100

25. Comment #71741 by calbear77 on September 19, 2007 at 2:57 pm

Marshall1,
To me, when religious people (mostly Christians) talk about their need for purpose, they only reveal what sheep they are.

I don't know if I'm paraphrasing Dawkins or not, but I will say I believe that "What is the purpose of life?" is just about the dumbest question one could ask. Just by asking the question, you are implying that it is up to someone else to answer it for you. It means you signal a willingness to follow whatever path that person who defines your purpose chooses for you.

So to answer your dumb question, I will give you this: It is up to you to give your own life a purpose. Make someone else happy! Discover something! But do it yourself. When you let others define your purpose, you are giving up the most precious gift you'll ever get. That's true whether you believe in God or evolution.

Other Comments by calbear77

26. Comment #71742 by Nefrubyr on September 19, 2007 at 3:01 pm

Atheism, from what I can tell claims that there is NO GOD. Am I wrong about that?

You might like to add "almost certainly" in the appropriate place. No rational person claims absolute knowledge that there are no gods, but because it's such a ludicrous, implausible and quite obviously man-made concept, coupled with the complete lack of verifiable evidence, the atheist thinks there are as many gods as there are tooth fairies at the bottom of the garden.

Other Comments by Nefrubyr

27. Comment #71744 by calbear77 on September 19, 2007 at 3:01 pm

It seems both are relying on the faith of their initial decision.

No Marshall. Dawkins isn't doing this at all. Rather, he is saying that, because there is no evidence currently to support such a wildly improbable assertion as "There is a god," he doesn't believe there is a god.

Other Comments by calbear77

28. Comment #71745 by Dr Benway on September 19, 2007 at 3:02 pm

Maybe He is just incredibly shy...

Clearly he wants us to live as atheists. And it's no wonder.

Without God we've only got each other, so we're forced to compromise and work toward mutual benefit.

With God, a few smarties will forever be playing suck-up, trying to get the Big Guy on their side so they can intimidate everyone else.

Collins and Dawkins need to get some sun. They're both rather green around the gills.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

29. Comment #71747 by marshall1 on September 19, 2007 at 3:03 pm

Oh yes, the capitalization comment really hurt me. But I bet I will survive.

calbear77, that was the best purpose answer I have yet gotten. It is a little depressing, but I understand what you are saying.

Other Comments by marshall1

30. Comment #71749 by Goldy on September 19, 2007 at 3:08 pm

You will. And I was just improving your written English. You will survive :-)

Other Comments by Goldy

31. Comment #71750 by Rational Thinking on September 19, 2007 at 3:09 pm

re calbear77: I don't know whether the idea that the question of purpose is "about the dumbest question one could ask" is a reasonable idea. If one accepts that a large number of people are indoctrinated into the idea of religious belief, then it might be. On the other hand, if one reaches the idea that "my life MUST have a purpose", it might be helpful to attempt to list some possibles. It's not about weakness, it's about a desire to be of service. That's not weakness, where it appears.

Here's a few I'd offer:

Add unto, don't strip mine
Put an arm around, don't deliver a knock-out punch
And (brace yourselves) - if you can be right or be kind, be kind - or both, but at least be kind
By whatever route, for whatever reason, we're here in the same time frame - let's make it a memorable one

Probably lots more. But that's a few.

RT

Other Comments by Rational Thinking

32. Comment #71752 by NormanDoering on September 19, 2007 at 3:13 pm

marshall1 wrote:

Atheism, from what I can tell claims that there is NO GOD. Am I wrong about that?

Yes. You are very wrong. We don't say there is no god(s), no one can know that, we say we don't believe in god(s).

You probably don't understand how the human brain works. Read this:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2007/09/how-religious-mindfuck-really-works.html

Other Comments by NormanDoering

33. Comment #71754 by calbear77 on September 19, 2007 at 3:17 pm

that was the best purpose answer I have yet gotten. It is a little depressing, but I understand what you are saying.

Marshall, with respect to some of the criticism I've received, I will probably agree I could have phrased it better.

But rather than finding it depressing, you should find it liberating. It means you choose your destiny. It means you get the opportunity to make the most of your ever-so-short existence and experience all the amazing things in this life (like astronomy, biology, etc).

In my case, last week, I was in Colorado, and I made it my purpose to visit as many microbreweries as I could. I went to six in six days. And it was far from depressing! Beer tip: Odell's 90 Schilling is just about the best beer on earth.

Other Comments by calbear77

34. Comment #71755 by elise97 on September 19, 2007 at 3:19 pm

"I was watching a Richard Dawkins interview and he explained to the interviewer that he first realized there was no God when he was 14 years old! "

that old! much younger children can pick holes in the 'logic' and 'evidence' for god, such as saying things like 'who created god', which are never answered by adults. any child with an enquiring mind and interest in nature is very quickly going to see major contradictions in content and style between scientific descriptions and religious accounts of things and decide which is true and you can be younger than 14 for this kind of reasoning. i never believed in god or i cant remember if i did, i think at first it always seemed unreal, like a fairy tale [i can remember thinking nativity plays were stupid for instance] and as i got older i realized i was right; there was no blinding realization. there was never anything to suggest otherwise.

Other Comments by elise97

35. Comment #71756 by Dr Benway on September 19, 2007 at 3:23 pm

I'll add to the list of purposes:

"Honey, I got some ice cream. Butter Pecan. Your favorite."

"Woohoo!"

Other Comments by Dr Benway

36. Comment #71757 by Corylus on September 19, 2007 at 3:23 pm

I will survive.

That's the spirit! Marshall1


First I was afraid
I was petrified
Kept thinking I could never live
without you by my side

La La.

Dances round computer singing...

I will survive
as long as i know how to love
I know I will stay alive
I've got all my life to live
I've got all my love to give
and I'll survive
I will survive

There's wisdom in disco :-)

Other Comments by Corylus

37. Comment #71761 by Rational Thinking on September 19, 2007 at 3:31 pm

Dr Benway and Corylus

I don't think I suggested that one HAS to have purpose. If you think not, fine. Evidence?

And you may be right. As yet it's unpoven, so far as I know.

Your responses may not be too helpful for anyone seeking one (a purpose, that is, rather than a cause).

Other Comments by Rational Thinking

38. Comment #71764 by Dr Benway on September 19, 2007 at 3:39 pm

Rational thinking, did I say life has no purpose? Hardly!

Other Comments by Dr Benway

39. Comment #71768 by He'sAVeryNaughtyBoy on September 19, 2007 at 3:44 pm

Marshall, oh dear. Calbear77 described a self purpose driven life, a future that you create, a destiny of your own design. What do you want to do today? Do it! Endless possibilities of fulfilment and wonder, whether you be partaking in somthing personaly challenging, shared with the love of others or just to do something for the love of being alive - is that not purpose enough?
And yet you find this depressing?
(Must...resist urge...to mock!!)

Please forgive me for being presumptuous, but I've no doubt that your purpose in life is to lead a good life in the name of your particular invisible space pixie so that you can go to your afterlife to spend eternity bowing and praising.

Sounds like the most depressing thing I can imagine. (OK, so the urge to mock overpowered me)


A thought for others - I've stopped refering to "a god" and I only ever now talk in terms of "gods". With the amount of deities that people have invented over the years I see no reason to highlight an individual god for special treatment, and I'm hoping anyone I talk to about the subject will pick that up. Any thoughts?

Other Comments by He'sAVeryNaughtyBoy

40. Comment #71771 by Rational Thinking on September 19, 2007 at 3:52 pm

Ice-cream - as purpose? Chuckling.

Though if I was to be picky (having re-read the posts here) I'd say that "no, you didn"t". Not explicitly. (Deep rumbling noise from SW Scotland). Erm - don't think I said you did. But let's not call a straw man right now.

And maybe (oh yikes) I was wrong in the inferences I drew. If so, I apologise. If not, let's talk.

Other Comments by Rational Thinking

41. Comment #71772 by USA_Limey on September 19, 2007 at 3:53 pm

Comment #71732 by marshall1:

I am actually on a fact finding mission here.

Whoa, careful everyone, marshall1 is on a fact finding mission. Hide those super secret atheist plans!

When you are done here Marshall1 do continue your fact finding mission: why not read the bible and let me know if you find any?

Cheers.

Other Comments by USA_Limey

42. Comment #71774 by Corylus on September 19, 2007 at 3:55 pm

Rational Thinking

Your responses may not be too helpful for anyone seeking one (a purpose, that is, rather than a cause).

Defining purpose is something that an individual needs to do for themselves. Without recourse to a non-existent being, or for that matter any other existing person's understanding of purpose.

My personal purpose is to continue to learn all my life, cherish the people that I am lucky enough to have in my world and to be silly when I jolly well feel like it.

Pretty much summed up in my post below...

Other Comments by Corylus

43. Comment #71778 by Lauregon on September 19, 2007 at 4:07 pm

Christians, on the other hand seem passionate about what they believe... - Marshall

However un-educated and incurious about the doctrines and history behind the things they claim to believe they may be.

...and are offering something that atheists aren't....purpose. That seems like an extremely important component to just leave out. - Marshall

What Christians "offer" in the way of "purpose" is the promise of heaven coerced by threat of eternal punishment in hell for not believing in "salvation" and the doctrine of Jesus' vicarious atonement, and/or not being sufficiently penitent for being human rather than divine and immune from committing "sin." In today's world, coercing compliance from people through threats of violence or acts of torture is illegal, and may even be considered "terrorism."

As has been advised above, create your own "purpose" by means of your own choices.

Also, I strongly suspect that at least most theists who argue the "purpose" aspect of the theist/non-theist debate, are arguing for a "received" issue, i.e., one they didn't arrive at themselves, but were indoctrinated in by others. Truly, I've never yet actually met a theist who appeared to have thought deeply enough about their faith in "God" for it to have occured to them to seriously worry about "purpose."

Other Comments by Lauregon

44. Comment #71781 by Rational Thinking on September 19, 2007 at 4:12 pm

Right, individuals need to define purpose for themselves. If there are those of us who can't (if you can allow that possibility) might those of us who think we have a handle on it be allowed the possibility of offering a suggesion or two?

Good for your purpose. But you wouldn't attempt to suggest (I assume - deliberately) that all of us should follow suit?

This sounds cross. Sorry, if I'm missing something.

Other Comments by Rational Thinking

45. Comment #71782 by Lauregon on September 19, 2007 at 4:21 pm

I went to several Christian blog sites before posting this message and I couldn't find the word atheist, dawkins or agnostic anywhere. Yet here, it seems every word that is typed is intended to attack people of faith... That is very telling, don't you think? - Marshall

Being no stranger to debates with believers, both as a believer and as a former believer, I'm confident in saying that believers are more than eager to attack atheists when given the opportunity, not the least of their attacks being the absolutist claim that atheists have no morality. So, to answer your question, #1, no, it's not true that "every word that is typed is intended to attack people of faith," and #2, no, "that" is not telling at all. ;)

Other Comments by Lauregon

46. Comment #71784 by Lauregon on September 19, 2007 at 4:26 pm

Rational Thinking, post # 44, it would be a good idea for you to make clear who you're responding to ---if it's to someone particular.

Other Comments by Lauregon

47. Comment #71785 by Rational Thinking on September 19, 2007 at 4:29 pm

Oh I'm sorry - my comment 44 was in response to comment 42. Apologies - I'm having difficulty with quotes. My bad.

Other Comments by Rational Thinking

48. Comment #71789 by Roland32 on September 19, 2007 at 4:42 pm

Marshall,

Here is a canned answer from a Atheism FAQ on another site, should clear up this misunderstanding.

1. What is Atheism?

Atheism is a term that should not even exist. Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make when in the presence of religious dogma.
-- Sam Harris

Most atheists are what is called weak atheists, which simply means that they do not hold the belief that a God exists. "Strong" atheists, who are rarer, make the positive claim that there is no God. Most atheists do not make this claim because their atheism is based on skepticism, and there is no evidence of the "strong atheist" position that God definitely does not exist (although some, notably Dawkins, try to argue that the existence of God is highly improbable). However, weak atheists may make the claim that specific Gods, such as the Christian God, do not exist. Theists sometimes confuse this with a strong atheist position.

Question 1A: Aren't militant atheists just as dogmatic as theists?
Answer 1A: Strong atheists probably are, but most atheists are weak atheists and don't make the claim that God does not exist. They simply adopt a position of skepticism towards the existence of God, and believe that there is not strong enough evidence that a God exists. Most people don't think that an asteroid is going to hit Los Angeles at noon tomorrow. To believe that proposition, they would want to be shown evidence. However, they aren't making the claim that an asteroid will not strike Los Angeles. Weak atheists don't think there is any reason to treat the question of the existence of God differently. They think that "faith" is synonomous with "believing something at random for no good reason".

Question 1B: So wait, weak atheists don't actively claim that God doesn't exist? Isn't that agnosticism?
Answer 1B: No. The difference between agnosticism and weak atheism is that weak atheists have investigated the evidence for the existence of a God and found it unconvincing. Agnostics may, for instance, have not looked at the evidence, or have looked at it and are not sure whether they are convinced or not. Or they may simply not believe that skepticism is appropriate to the question of the existence of God.

Other Comments by Roland32

49. Comment #71863 by Mitchell Gilks on September 19, 2007 at 7:49 pm

Collin once being an atheist simply proves that there can be bad reasons to be an atheist I guess.

I would like to point out to Roland that agnostic and atheist are not mutually exlusive, and in fact are answers to entirely different questions.

Saying you are agnostic/gnostic answers the question "do you know whether deities exist?"

Saying you are atheist/theist answers the question "do you believe that deities exist?"

Agnostic/gnostic has to do with what you know or don't know. Atheist/theist has to do with what you believe or don't believe. I know that traditionally agnostic is used to denote a middle between atheist and theist, but in the strictest sense no middle exists. You either believe or you don't believe. Saying you don't know doesn't answer what you believe to be the case.

I believe that is why Dawkins says that he is agnostic in the sense and to the extent that he is agnostic to the fairies in the bottom of the garden, and I am also agnostic in that sense.

I can't say that I'm absolutely certain that there are none, but I'm extremely confident that there aren't.

Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks

50. Comment #71869 by Teratornis on September 19, 2007 at 8:04 pm

I'll chime in on Comment #71713 by marshall1:

Of course, this is all pretty un-scientific, weak and almost not worth doing, but I voted anyway.

Did you know Christianity as we know (much of) it today resulted from a number of votes, more or less? See for example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

I was watching a Richard Dawkins interview and he explained to the interviewer that he first realized there was no God when he was 14 years old! He might be a pretty smart guy, but how could he have had the information to make that decision at 14? Sounds like he just decided there was no God and everything he has learned since that point has bolstered a decision he had already made.

Everyone has cognitive biases:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_bias

However, almost everyone agrees on a lot of things we call "facts." For example, almost everyone agrees the Sept. 11 terror attacks did occur and were not merely some sort of hoax put on by the news media. That's because there are many independent lines of evidence indicating that the attacks did occur, there are no lines of evidence suggesting otherwise, and millions of people would have to cooperate flawlessly to pull off a hoax on such a scale.

No matter what sort of cognitive biases people may have had that might have made them skeptical about the possibility for large-scale terror attacks on the United States, the overwhelming evidence for the attacks quickly blew through everyone's cognitive filters and shocked them into a different way of thinking.

Different people find different kinds of evidences compelling. One way to be persuasive is to (somehow) determine what sort of argument among many possibilities a particular person may be vulnerable to.

At age 14, Dawkins realized there are many religions, each claiming to be correct, and each claiming all the others are incorrect. Under such circumstances there are only two possibilities: either one religion is correct, and all the others are incorrect; or none of them are correct. Either way, that's a lot of incorrect religions. Since every religion seems to be highly persuasive to its followers (Muslims are just as sure as Christians and so on), we know that the persuasiveness of a religion has nothing to do with its correctness.

Which is like kicking three legs out from under the table, given that every religion relies on circular arguments and promotes belief itself as an evidence for something.

Christians, on the other hand seem passionate about what they believe and are offering something that atheists aren't....purpose. That seems like an extremely important component to just leave out.

I suppose it would be, to someone who has trouble thinking up a purpose on his own. If you read biographies of high-achieving people, most of them seemed to just already know what they wanted to do. This might have something to do with the structure of their brains; for example, Mozart's purpose was obvious when he started playing musical instruments at age 4, almost without having to be taught, as if he was born knowing how to play. Of course Mozart did then study under a succession of teachers, which he quickly outgrew one after another. But there was never any question about what he was going to do with his (sadly brief) life.

Unfortunately, most people are not high achievers, and they need someone else to tell them what to do. It's probably not a bad idea for scientists to give that some thought, lest the void they might unintentionally create by forgetting about the lack of imagination and vision among hoi polloi should be filled by someone nefarious.

I don't expect this to be a permanent problem, however, because it seems almost obvious that scientific progress must eventually lead to the engineering of human talents rather than leaving it up to nature's random genetic recombinations. Just as humans have cultivated plants and animals to make them more useful, sooner or later humans must learn to cultivate themselves. We don't leave it up to nature to decide how cold we should be in winter (instead we heat our buildings), or whether we should eat today (instead, we farm our food), or how far and fast we should travel, etc. Why should we leave it up to nature to decide how smart we are, how talented we are, and what we look like? Who wouldn't want to have all the skills of the most skilled humans in every important field? Give people (what are now) exceptional talents, and their talents will define their purposes.

People who are really good at something don't wake up in the morning wondering what to do. They just know. They wake up each day bursting with ideas about what they want to create and achieve. The main problem for the high achiever is not deciding what to do, but what not to do, in the ridiculously short time of one human lifespan. (And, obviously, science needs to do something about that.)

In the meantime, one useful purpose is to add to the stockpile of useful human knowledge, either by discovering something new at the frontiers of knowledge, or to make existing knowledge more usefully available. For example, you might look at the remarkable work millions of volunteers are doing over at Wikipedia (and on other wikis). Those people who are toiling away at providing the world's most comprehensive encyclopedia for free come from every faith and no faith. There are lots of atheists donating their time and labor to the project, for no objective personal reward whatsoever. They just want to be part of something larger than their own little self-absorbed individual lives, apparently because that happens to be an innate desire common to lots of people.

Religion does not create this desire to join with other people and work toward something larger than one's personal goals - religion merely exploits this pre-existing desire, to hook people in, and then fill their heads with falsehoods.

I went to several Christian blog sites before posting this message and I couldn't find the word atheist, dawkins or agnostic anywhere. Yet here, it seems every word that is typed is intended to attack people of faith... That is very telling, don't you think?

You seem to have missed the "fleas," i.e. the flood of books written in response to the "new atheism" best-sellers. And the many sermons I listened to during my religious upbringing included a large amount of preaching against various things. Or you could just read the Bible and see how much of it amounts to condemnations of various behaviors, people, nations, and ideas. Christianity could not possibly have become the world's largest religion by being nice to the competition - Christianity must unavoidably be against many things. (Just ask Galileo.)

One of the first lessons you would learn if you studied critical thinking would be to separate yourself from the ideas you happen to have just now. Attacking an idea is different than attacking the people who hold it, but try telling that to their emotional brains! Most people do confuse their ideas with themselves. Obviously, who we are, or at least what we do, does have a lot to do with what we happen to believe at the moment, but people change their ideas frequently, without losing their sense of identity.

For example, suppose you have a spouse, and you believe everything is going well with him or her, right up to the moment you discover your spouse in bed with someone else. You would then have to substantially revise your earlier beliefs about your relationship with your spouse, replacing them with new ideas, but you would still be you.

If someone had told you that your spouse was cheating, before you found out, that person would not have been attacking you. Rather, that person would been attacking the incorrect ideas about your spouse that were holed up in your brain at the time.

Your beliefs are not you. Your beliefs are merely temporary guests in your brain. Some will stay there until you die, but others will leave to make way for other ideas checking in after them.

If you choose to regard an attack on your ideas as an attack on you, the result will likely be that you lose objectivity. You will tend to reject whatever argument your "attacker" presents, without properly evaluating the evidence for it. If the evidence happens to be pretty good, you may find yourself getting flustered and angry, a sure sign that you haven't mastered critical thinking yet.

Most people experience pleasant emotions when someone else confirms their beliefs, and unpleasant emotions when someone else challenges their beliefs. This is just the way our emotional brains evolved to operate. This probably had survival value in the ancestral environment, when most people lived in small groups, and there was little or no technological progress from generation to generation. Under primitive conditions, most new ideas are probably dangerous, because the threats and opportunities are fairly stable. It was very important for the individual to comform to the group and to gain the approval of peers, since the outcast human was unlikely to survive alone, back when the world was a very tough place.

Critical thinking is a learned skill, and a big part of it is learning not to feel too attached to the ideas that currently fill our heads. A critical thinker welcomes evidence which disconfirms any idea he currently holds.

Why would critical thinkers cultivate this brand of mental discipline? Well, the results are all around you. You probably aren't sitting outside in primitive conditions exposed to all the weather, predators, and pests. Instead you are probably sitting in a comfortable artificial environment, surrounded by all sorts of useful modern technologies, such as the computer displaying my words.

Building all that cool stuff did not merely require discovering new truths; it also required centuries of disproving and weeding out innumerable earlier ideas that were anywhere from slightly to completely wrong. Given that humans tend to fall in love with whatever ideas (right or wrong) they happen to hold at any given time, this weeding-out process has been excruciating, and at times it has boiled over into violence.

What you are seeing here is just the latest episode in that grand saga of humanity groping and stumbling its way toward the light.

Other Comments by Teratornis