Wednesday, September 3, 2008 | Reason : In the News | print version

Origins - The BIG Questions: 2008 Skeptics Society Conference

by Skeptic.com

Today, there is arguably no hotter topic in culture than science & religion

So much of the debate turns on The Big Questions that involve Origins: the origin of the universe, the origin of the 'fine-tuned' laws of nature, the origin of time and time's arrow, the origin of life and complex life, and the origin of brains, minds, and consciousness. From theologians and philosophers to creationists and intelligent design theorists, the central core of almost all of their arguments centers on filling these origin gaps with God. But now science is making significant headway into providing natural explanations for these ultimate questions, which leaves us with the biggest question of all: Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Organized by the Skeptics Society and running from October 3—4, 2008, this conference brings together some of the world's greatest minds to discuss some of the world's greatest questions at the California Institute of Technology.

Speakers
Dr. Sean Carroll
Dr. Paul Davies
Dr. Stuart Kauffman
Dr. Christof Koch
Dr. Kenneth Miller
Dr. Nancey Murphy
Dr. Donald Prothero
Dr. Hugh Ross
Dr. Victor Stenger
Dr. Leonard Susskind

Hosts
Dr. Michael Shermer
Dr. Philip Clayton

Entertainment
Mr. Deity

9/07/08 - UPDATE from Michael Shermer:

The Templeton Foundation Association with the Skeptics Society

From Michael Shermer:

There seems to be much hand-wringing and angst over the Skeptics Society annual conference this year at Caltech because of the association with the Templeton Foundation (TF). I find this rather amusing. It seems that it is perfectly okay for us (the Skeptics Society) to host conferences and debates about science and religion, God's existence, origins, etc. (we've done several of these since we began in 1992, and many issues of Skeptic magazine have been devoted to the topic), but the association with the Templeton Foundation calls everything into suspect. Why? No one seems able to articulate that. Do you think people at the TF call me up to command "thou shalt not take the Lord's name in scientific vain."? Even if they did, don't you realize by now that I'm my own man and call my own shots?

Nevertheless, here is how the association with the TF came about: For this year's "Big Question" that the TF sponsored, they invited me to gather and edit a dozen essays answering the question: "Does science make belief in God obsolete?" That's right. The Templeton Foundation invited a person who Dinesh D'Souza and others call one of the world's most prominent atheists to edit a series on science and religion for them. I had free reign to invite whomever I wished to contribute, and together we put together a list of people who would offer us a wide range of answers (you can read them all at the TF web page (http://www.templeton.org/belief/).

I managed to get Steven Pinker, Christopher Hitchens, Victor Stenger, and others who I'm sure would receive the atheists' stamp of approval. At no point did anyone at the TF attempt to manipulate how the essays would turn out, how they were edited, and how they appeared in the final print versions (in ads in major publications and in a booklet, which you can get for free at the TF web page). I was well paid for the work I did (and it was a fair amount of work), all the authors were paid (including the atheist authors), I was well treated by the TF staff, and my overall impression was that these are exceptionally professional people running the foundation.

In searching for a topic for this year's Caltech conference, I thought that I would build a conference around this thematic idea (it is a huge amount of work to put on an international conference, so it helps to organize it around a familiar topic with speakers who are friends), plus add more science to the day with an entire morning session on origins (origins of the universe, origins of life, origins of complexity, and origins of consciousness), since these are the biggest "god of the gaps" areas, and for these we have some of the top scientists in the world speaking. Check it out here: http://origins.skeptic.com/.

Then I thought it would be fun to have a head-to-head god debate between hard-core atheist/scientist Victor Stenger and someone comparable on the other side. Here in So. California is Reasons to Believe, headed up by the Ph.D. cosmologist Hugh Ross, who has debated Stenger on the radio before, so I invited the two of them to debate, and they agreed.

So, the entire conference theme and all its elements were my idea. I simply asked the TF if they could help me out with the travel expenses for the afternoon colloquium speakers on the Big Question topic, and that is all they are doing. In fact, the TF made it clear that they are not sponsoring the Stenger-Ross debate or the morning lectures, as they did not want my event to become their event.

So that's it, but if you want to see for yourself (atheists are good empiricists, right?), then come to the conference. See you all the first weekend in October. It's going to be a great weekend, and the conference price includes all meals.

Michael Shermer

Add to del.icio.us Posted: Wednesday, September 3, 2008 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 95 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #242202 by NewEnglandBob on September 3, 2008 at 1:09 pm

...and cosponsored by the Templeton Foundation

No need to read further.

Other Comments by NewEnglandBob

2. Comment #242208 by qomak on September 3, 2008 at 1:15 pm

No need to read further.

Don't be that harsh. I don't know all the speakers, but many respectable people (including atheists) are there.

Other Comments by qomak

3. Comment #242213 by Saerain on September 3, 2008 at 1:20 pm

And Mr. Deity.

Other Comments by Saerain

4. Comment #242215 by Matt7895 on September 3, 2008 at 1:22 pm

Anyone watched/listened to this? I'm interested in some of the names (Miller, Shermer, Stenger) but I want to know if it's actually interesting, and I'd appreciate some feedback from those who have seen it.

Other Comments by Matt7895

5. Comment #242218 by Beusfalus on September 3, 2008 at 1:23 pm

god is on trial at the moment....bbc 2

drama about the jews in Auschwitz putting god on trial....its peachy

Other Comments by Beusfalus

6. Comment #242219 by Broodsugar on September 3, 2008 at 1:24 pm

Shermer usually puts up a fair case, no? I wouldn't worry about the Templeton foundation funding it, I'd rather give them some credit!

Other Comments by Broodsugar

7. Comment #242222 by Steve13 on September 3, 2008 at 1:27 pm

"Anyone watched/listened to this? I'm interested in some of the names (Miller, Shermer, Stenger) but I want to know if it's actually interesting, and I'd appreciate some feedback from those who have seen it."

It's only happening in October

Other Comments by Steve13

8. Comment #242228 by ggab7768 on September 3, 2008 at 1:31 pm

That's a hell of a lineup.
Where does the Templeton thing come in,I didn't see that?
I certainly can't imagine some of these guys having any dealings with the Templeton crackpots.

Other Comments by ggab7768

9. Comment #242243 by HandyGeek on September 3, 2008 at 1:46 pm

Hoping for a DVD series of highlights. :D

Other Comments by HandyGeek

10. Comment #242291 by jwdink on September 3, 2008 at 2:18 pm

The Templeton Foundation comes in with people like Hugh Ross. Aside from that, a very legit lineup.

Other Comments by jwdink

11. Comment #242323 by Janus on September 3, 2008 at 2:39 pm

Why invite Ross? To have a 'balanced' lineup? Isn't that exactly the kind of argument that creationists are using to try to sneak in their myths in science classes?

"and cosponsored by the Templeton Foundation"

Oh, that's why.

Other Comments by Janus

12. Comment #242329 by ergaster on September 3, 2008 at 2:45 pm

This looks like the best thing since Beyond Belief 2006. Let's hope for videos or at least some audio from this.

I checked Wiki to see what to expect in regard to opposing viewpoints and it looks like it's going to be a great clash of minds. Dr. Hugh Ross will certainly have a rough time. [EDIT: He will be mincemeat, he's going to debate Stenger after their talks.] Here are some highlights on the speakers:

Sean M. Carroll
He is an outspoken atheist, who argues that scientific thinking leads one to a materialist worldview. He turned down an invitation to speak at a conference sponsored by the John Templeton Foundation, on the grounds that he did not want to appear to be supporting a reconciliation between science and religion.

Dr. Paul Davies
Davies' sympathy towards religion's reliance on faith has been criticized by the prominent atheist Richard Dawkins: "Paul Davies's The Mind of God seems to hover somewhere between Einsteinian pantheism and an obscure form of deism - for which he was rewarded with the Templeton Prize."

Dr. Stuart Kauffman
American theoretical biologist and complex systems researcher concerning the origin of life on Earth.

Dr. Christof Koch
American neuroscientist working on the neural basis of consciousness.

Dr. Kenneth Miller
Biology professor at Brown University. Miller, who is Roman Catholic, is particularly known for his opposition to creationism, including the intelligent design movement.

Dr. Nancey Murphy
Christian theologian and philosopher known for her works on theology and science. She is currently Professor of Christian Philosophy at Fuller Theological Seminary.
Her first book, Theology in the Age of Scientific Reasoning, won prizes from both the American Academy of Religion and the Templeton Foundation awarded the 1999 Prize for Outstanding Books in Theology. In 2006 Murphy claimed she faced a campaign to get her fired after she expressed her view that intelligent design was not only poor theology, but "so stupid, I don't want to give them my time."

Dr. Donald Prothero
Professor of Geology at Occidental College and Lecturer in Geobiology at Caltech
His latest book is Evolution: What the Fossils Say & Why it Matters.

Dr. Hugh Ross
Canadian-born Old Earth creationist and Christian apologist. An astronomer and astrophysicist by training, he has established his own ministry called Reasons To Believe that promotes forms of Old Earth creationism known as progressive creationism and day-age creationism. Ross accepts the scientific evidence of the age of the earth and the age of the universe, but he rejects evolution and abiogenesis as explanations for the history and origin of life.

Dr. Victor Stenger
Emeritus professor of physics and astronomy at the University of Hawaii and adjunct professor of philosophy at the University of Colorado. Stenger used to work in particle physics but is principally known as a critic and skeptic of Intelligent Design and other ideas of pseudoscience.

Dr. Leonard Susskind
Felix Bloch professor of theoretical physics at Stanford University in the field of string theory and quantum field theory. Susskind is widely regarded as one of the fathers of string theory for his early contributions to the String Theory model of particle physics.

Other Comments by ergaster

13. Comment #242379 by Oppomystic on September 3, 2008 at 3:33 pm

It wouldn't be fair to have a "Does science make belief in God obsolete?" discussion without inviting the other side.

The Templeton Foundation has an advert in the latest issue of SKEPTIC. I'm wondering if they're doing the old "keep your enemies closer" thing now or if they're just further deluding themselves that science and religion can get along...

Like Shermer says, "It Depends."

Interventionist Theism? No. Non-interventionist Deism? Yes.

Other Comments by Oppomystic

14. Comment #242416 by Titania on September 3, 2008 at 4:23 pm

Maybe I'll go and post reports to the site.

From looking at the brochure, I think that Templeton is sponsoring the afternoon session. I do not think Sean Carroll will speak at a Templeton sponsored event.

Other Comments by Titania

15. Comment #242434 by Quine on September 3, 2008 at 4:55 pm

I registered.

Other Comments by Quine

16. Comment #242443 by Titania on September 3, 2008 at 5:38 pm

I also registered.

Other Comments by Titania

17. Comment #242447 by Enlightenme.. on September 3, 2008 at 6:00 pm

^Oppomystic; "Non-interventionist Deism? Yes."

Are you essentially agreeing with Shermer and saying that science & religion *can* get along in this restricted category?

It is still a scientific statement, surely, to assume that the Universe could be a purposed creation, whence, in the absence of communication with this creator, we must then presume that the inevitable evolution of sex was intended for the purpose of procreation, which then justifies throwing homosexuals (of whom lolcat will sez; "Ur doin' it rong") off mountains?

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

18. Comment #242450 by BrianJ on September 3, 2008 at 6:23 pm

I have seen Shermer speak live twice, he is a great speaker and I'm confident will host a great show.

Other Comments by BrianJ

19. Comment #242454 by DanDare on September 3, 2008 at 6:40 pm

I devour Dr. Stuart Kauffman's work. It has taught me a great deal about how to understand complex systems and how to identify attractors and pick apart fitness maps.

Other Comments by DanDare

20. Comment #242463 by Gamma ut on September 3, 2008 at 7:45 pm

Even if it is in part funded by the Templeton foundation (i can't find out for sure), Michael Shermer is HOSTING the conference, so I am pretty sure this conference will be mostly about how ID is not science. Also should be a good source of info to point IDiots towards when they spout their "teach the *controversy*" BS.

Kyle

Other Comments by Gamma ut

21. Comment #242486 by german-atheist on September 3, 2008 at 10:35 pm

i don`t consider „does science make belief in god obsolete" an important question and in no way the biggest question of them all.

Other Comments by german-atheist

22. Comment #242487 by Lucas on September 3, 2008 at 10:37 pm

This will be good, if not perfect. Thank you ergaster for all the info. It sure seems to me that the bill is a little light on non-believer scientists and a little heavy on apologists, but I would want to attend if I could and I'll be more than happy to watch the vids.

Other Comments by Lucas

23. Comment #242495 by TalkyMeat on September 3, 2008 at 11:29 pm

Probably the apologist types are just there to advise on where to mail God's Social Security cheques.

Seriously, though, this sounds really interesting. I hope they post the audio.

Other Comments by TalkyMeat

24. Comment #242497 by spacepenguin on September 3, 2008 at 11:41 pm

Lucas:

It sure seems to me that the bill is a little light on non-believer scientists and a little heavy on apologists, but I would want to attend if I could and I'll be more than happy to watch the vids.

From what I can tell...

Dr. Sean Carroll - Atheist
Dr. Paul Davies - Quantum backpropagationist from what I can make out from his latest book.
Dr. Stuart Kauffman - Atheist/pantheist
Dr. Christof Koch - Don't know, anti-dualist.
Dr. Kenneth Miller - Theistic evolutionist
Dr. Nancey Murphy - Theistic evolutionist
Dr. Donald Prothero - Is on the editorial board of skeptic magazine.
Dr. Hugh Ross - Creationist
Dr. Victor Stenger - Athiest
Dr. Leonard Susskind - Atheist

The line-up is 20% apologist and 10% creationist. Not bad for a conference on science and religion.

Other Comments by spacepenguin

25. Comment #242503 by oasis-al-reason on September 4, 2008 at 12:48 am

Wish I could afford to be there, can't afford it though. How about running a competition Richard?
Can't this be broadcast live?
Come on Templeton, cough up.

Hey Gamma ut, love the IDiots jibe, have to remember that one.

Other Comments by oasis-al-reason

26. Comment #242512 by King of NH on September 4, 2008 at 1:26 am

While I do feel bad for the insulting regression science will go through to appease the 'believers' at an event such as this, it is an important event.

1) What if (BIG if) there is some evidence on their side? I strongly doubt it, but let them share.

2) Whether sound or not, someone must deal with the claims. Always refusing to acknowledge their stupid questions reinforces the idea of the closed society of science, the Ivory Tower. Let them poor out their life's work, then laugh: "Silly theist, tricks are for kids."

3) The worst that can come of this is a good laugh at the profound ignorance of the 'godidit' crowd the likes of Expelled, The Atheists' Nightmare, The Dawkins Delusion, and the greatest tragic comedy ever read by a godiditite, The Holy Bible.

Other Comments by King of NH

27. Comment #242519 by SaintStephen on September 4, 2008 at 1:37 am

I'm still a rookie here, but don't ALL arguments founded on either creationism, theology, ID, and even panspermia -- simply crumble under the weight of infinite regress?

Why isn't debunking the "uncaused cause" the focus of all atheist efforts? Why do we work so damn hard, just to end up leaving our door slightly ajar, so that we still must hear the crying of the foul religious winds?

Other Comments by SaintStephen

28. Comment #242521 by quantum_flux on September 4, 2008 at 1:44 am

Cool! Although, there is so much about the universe that we are only yet beginning to understand. God and Satan exist as concepts, a model for human behaviourial training, it's just most unfortunate that people seem to think that the conceptualized is actually a form of reality when there is really no objective data to verify those concepts and when the probability of that concept being reality is so low that it is practically zero.

Other Comments by quantum_flux

29. Comment #242523 by mmurray on September 4, 2008 at 1:58 am

It is still a scientific statement, surely, to assume that the Universe could be a purposed creation, whence, in the absence of communication with this creator, we must then presume that the inevitable evolution of sex was intended for the purpose of procreation, which then justifies throwing homosexuals (of whom lolcat will sez; "Ur doin' it rong") off mountains?

Surely we could just as reasonably assume that Ceiling Cat intended us to use the brains that we have evolved to devise a system of ethics and morality ?

Regards - Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

30. Comment #242524 by Stafford Gordon on September 4, 2008 at 2:01 am

I agree with Saint Stephen.

Dennett says that we have to tell them that they simply cannot play the faith card any more.

Other Comments by Stafford Gordon

31. Comment #242528 by JemyM on September 4, 2008 at 2:39 am

The hottest topics in Swedish culture are jobs, wellfare and the environment.

Other Comments by JemyM

32. Comment #242542 by Darwin's Teapot on September 4, 2008 at 3:18 am

If it ever does show up can someone please post where we can all get any possible audio clips from the event. I am currently living overseas and would absolutely love to make it to the event, but distance doesn't make it feasible. Alas, in Korea these topics are rarely discussed.

www.darwinsteapot.blogspot.com

Other Comments by Darwin's Teapot

33. Comment #242555 by the great teapot on September 4, 2008 at 4:04 am

"Does science make god obsolete?"
No, of course not.

What makes god obsolete is the fact that he don't exist.

Other Comments by the great teapot

34. Comment #242567 by InfuriatedSciTeacher on September 4, 2008 at 5:18 am

Would love to attend... wondering how to convince my school district to pay for it... if I can tie it to a physical sci/ physics curriculum, and based on the speakers it looks justifiable, I can swing it.

The spectrum of belief (or lack thereof) in the speakers is quite interesting... Can't WAIT to see how Ross copes with Stenger and the rest...

Other Comments by InfuriatedSciTeacher

35. Comment #242598 by Jayday on September 4, 2008 at 6:32 am

I am a Skeptics society member but have grown cool toward the actions of Michael Shermer in the last year. I attended his debate with Dinesh D' Souza at Cal Tech and was shocked at how he appeared to have done an about face and just basically handed D' Souza (which he admits is a good friend) the debate. It was very disheartening. I have more details about the event in my "other comments" section of this website.

After that event and his subsequent association with the Templeton Foundation, I have stopped attending the Skeptics Society lectures on a regular basis. Shermer baffles me. Too bad Professor Dawkins isn't on the panel of lectures for the conference. I think he is uniquely qualified to add to the discussion. However, Professor Dawkins has made it clear that he isn't a fan of the Templeton Foundation. It is possible that he wouldn't want to be involved with the conference because of the topic which brings theology into an equal conversational setting with science. I don't know.

Jayday

Other Comments by Jayday

36. Comment #242618 by squinky on September 4, 2008 at 7:30 am

I echo Jayday

I too am a member of the Skeptic's Society and travelled to CalTech from the east coast twice to see Shermer's Conference on Global Warming and Consciousness.

The conference is OK if a bit geeky and I agree that Shermer is a curious kind of atheist. No doubt he is on our side and a great public advocate for atheism but time and again I see him waffle on atheism. He's a 'militant agnostic' claiming 'I don't know (if there's a god, what happens after death, etc) and you don't either'. Then he floats into hardcore atheism and then out again. The D'Souza debate was sad. Like Dawkins said in a thread, it's easy to be an armchair debateur but it's as if he did no homework and didn't know what to expect.

I wouldn't recommend going to CalTech unless you live in California. Just watch it on Youtube.

Other Comments by squinky

37. Comment #242622 by mitch_486 on September 4, 2008 at 7:46 am

"I'm still a rookie here, but don't ALL arguments founded on either creationism, theology, ID, and even panspermia -- simply crumble under the weight of infinite regress?

Why isn't debunking the "uncaused cause" the focus of all atheist efforts? Why do we work so damn hard, just to end up leaving our door slightly ajar, so that we still must hear the crying of the foul religious winds?" -SaintSteven

Well said, indeed they do crumble.
It is extrememly difficult to focus on exactly what you are talking about. I'm sure others will agree when I say that IDiots simply remain ignorant of that exact topic(infinate regress); they play the faith card, our jaws drop and nothing really happens.
This is why we remain focused on shedding light on the topics that can be more easily understood: fossils, Transitional species, this is what they love to try and debunk. We simply have to keep fighting back.

That's what I love about these conferences. Some people may finally see the importance of science and what it has to offer for the first time. This is what we should be looking forward to.

Other Comments by mitch_486

38. Comment #242669 by SilentMike on September 4, 2008 at 10:44 am

They can work with whoever they want to as far as I'm concerned. I'm not a fan of the Templeton people but I wouldn't get to excited about this.

Other Comments by SilentMike

39. Comment #242676 by BeyondBelief on September 4, 2008 at 10:53 am

Mitch's followup to St. Stephen, in comment 37 is right on.

We don't focus all our efforts on that one point because... well... try it some time. Here's my results:

Me: "so you see, the question of a creator only forces the question of "who created the creator."
Fundie: But the Bible Said God did it.
Me: Right. But can you think outside the Bible? What makes it the ultimate authority. It's a book.
Fundie: I see your point, but the Bible says it's the ultimate authority. (said with a very straight face.) I don't have no need to question further.

This is almost a verbatim transcript of the final few seconds of the very last 3 hour argument I had with a fundamentalist believer, over 20 years ago. You can spin your wheels forever and still not find the right meme to pierce the perfect, circular logic and thinking employed.

Most likely the perfect meme that succeeds will come obliquely, and not in direct attack on the "who created the creator" question.

Still seeking the perfect faith shattering meme,

Rob.

Other Comments by BeyondBelief

40. Comment #242683 by Steve Zara on September 4, 2008 at 11:01 am

Comment #242519 by SaintStephen

I'm still a rookie here, but don't ALL arguments founded on either creationism, theology, ID, and even panspermia -- simply crumble under the weight of infinite regress?

Theologians get out of this by claiming that God is the kind of thing that is necessary, and so has always been, and needs no cause.

The historical reason for this (I think) is that people had no idea what was involved for minds to exist, and so they asssumed that minds could be very simple things - almost pure essenses. Now we know that minds are the most complex things we know of, and consist of information processing in very organised substrates (such as brains).

Other Comments by Steve Zara

41. Comment #242768 by D'Arcy on September 4, 2008 at 12:33 pm

Steve says:

Theologians get out of this by claiming that God is the kind of thing that is necessary, and so has always been, and needs no cause.

I don't think we need the LHC's precision to say that Steve has got it exactly right. IMO the whole idea of the supernatural has been based on a lack of hard knowledge about reality. The more knowledge has advanced, the more the religios retreat into the metaphysical (supernatural) sphere, an area currently incapable of investigation.

Other Comments by D'Arcy

42. Comment #242782 by mitch_486 on September 4, 2008 at 1:04 pm

Another problem is, as hard as we try, we can't fully answer the reasons for which the universe came to be, BUT, we also know that just because there isn't a full explanation for it, doesn't mean there isn't so it's been "made"

Always a tough one to discuss, not to mention the brain power involved when discussing current results of research

Other Comments by mitch_486

43. Comment #242801 by Quine on September 4, 2008 at 1:25 pm

Comment #242676 by BeyondBelief:

Still seeking the perfect faith shattering meme

Yes, I am also working on this. Remember that the 'perfect' can often be the enemy of the 'good' and what might be perfect to use on one kind of believer does nothing at all for another.

I suggest studying deconversion stories. I just finished reading God's Problem by Bart D. Ehrman, which shows what happens when you spend your academic life studying scripture and then come spang up against the problem of suffering. I am now reading godless by Dan Barker, which tells the story from the view of a very active evangelical preacher (Richard Dawkins wrote the intro for this book.)

People wake up when questions bubble up from the unconscious and become unanswerable by the thinking brain. This happens all the time in kids; they are told to shutup because they will understand 'later', in the hopes that they will forget about the 'later' (usually works). If you go back to those basic questions, like what about all the good people who are born into the wrong religion, or before our religion, or what about all those children who die horrible deaths from flood and storm, etc., you will find the memes to keep pushing.

P.S. This year I expect a flood of deconversion books by former preachers, ministers and other clergy. The groundbreaking books by Dawkins, et al., have caused a market at publishers for this kind of 'coming out' story.

Other Comments by Quine

44. Comment #242815 by neale on September 4, 2008 at 1:45 pm

It looks delicious, I hope someone does a propper job of videoing it and putting it on you tube. I can't see why these god botherers keep wanting to debate. If you,re an undecided inteligent free thinker watching one of these things for the first time it's painfully obvious who comes out on top, every time. They just can't see that faith is outstripped by reason and evidence at every turn.

Kristof Koch is the one to watch, with his studies of neurology and conciousness. One day someone like him will be able to say "see this overactive area in your left temporal lobe....that's why you believe all this religious rubbish....would you like me to calm it down for you?"

Other Comments by neale

45. Comment #242852 by Aurorum on September 4, 2008 at 2:53 pm

Ross' site is reasons.org.

Other Comments by Aurorum

46. Comment #242910 by SaintStephen on September 4, 2008 at 5:40 pm

Thanks to all who responded to my inquiry earlier (mitch_486, BeyondBelief, Steve Zara, D'Arcy, Quine, and others). The privilege to read thoughtful and intelligent posts like these is precisely why I am here, and will continue to be here.

Other Comments by SaintStephen

47. Comment #242949 by squinky on September 4, 2008 at 8:34 pm

Neale,

Koch is the man! I saw him at Beyond Consciousness and he blew me away with the neural correlates stuff. He wrote a paper in Nature last year about face recognition and single neurons. Impressive stuff. Harris's paper using fMRI was damn inspiring as well.

Other Comments by squinky

48. Comment #242951 by Darwin's Teapot on September 4, 2008 at 8:58 pm

To "the great teapot": Our names are way too similar. I feel very unoriginal and threatened.

www.darwinsteapot.blogspot.com

Other Comments by Darwin's Teapot

49. Comment #243034 by Konradius on September 5, 2008 at 2:23 am

Darwin's Teapot:

Our names are way too similar. I feel very unoriginal and threatened.

Relish the feeling! It will give you great empathy with apologists, creationists and others like them.

Other Comments by Konradius

50. Comment #243047 by Darwin's Teapot on September 5, 2008 at 3:03 am

Excellent point. I guess my lack of originality and feelings of inadequacy could be a bridge building tool between myself and those more "heavenly slanted". Dare I say, "A stairway to heaven"? *drum tap*

www.darwinsteapot.blogspot

Other Comments by Darwin's Teapot

Reload Comments | Back to Top

More Comments: 1 2 | Next | Last