1. Comment #8634 by Yorker on November 21, 2006 at 9:36 pm

I just watched #3 directly from the Beyond Belief site, excellent stuff and the first time I've heard Richard Dawkins say the word "fuck". I don't know why, but I was taken aback, I suppose it's just because he doesn't normally talk that way.

I was impressed by Carolyn Porco, she echoed thoughts that I've had for some time, particularly with regard to a replacement for religion.

2. Comment #8675 by Stefan on November 22, 2006 at 12:45 am

What an absolute treat!

Just watched #3 (Roughgarden/Porco/Dawkins) and #4 (with Hameroff/Ramachandran).

Brilliant - entertaining and educational. Can't wait to see the rest.

3. Comment #8692 by Rob A on November 22, 2006 at 2:26 am

I don't have rights to download QuickTime... what can I do?
(is this what excommunication feels like?!?)

4. Comment #8716 by melisande on November 22, 2006 at 4:33 am

8. Comment #8692 by Rob A
really? It should work....I don't think I have any special quicktime priveleges...
You should be able to -- on a windows machine -right click and choose save as, on mac control click and download linked file.

Unless you've already tried that...

5. Comment #8719 by Rob A on November 22, 2006 at 4:46 am

Thanks Melisande... unfortunately I don't have administrator rights over my machine at work ! so I was hoping for an alternative source for these clips.

6. Comment #8721 by melisande on November 22, 2006 at 4:57 am

I hope I didn't come off as condescending, some people just don't know.
:^)
Unfortunately I think these would be a bit lengthy for a youtube upload, unless someone is of director status...

I guess bit torrent is out of the question too, work wise, eh?
I'm just up waaaaay too late, myself.

7. Comment #8732 by Skeptic Jim on November 22, 2006 at 5:53 am

*pulls up pillow*
*inserts cafeine IV*

8. Comment #8791 by Hal on November 22, 2006 at 9:43 am

I have Quick Time installed but when I click on the "watch" buttons nothing happens. Does anyone know what might be wrong? Are there different versions of Quick Time?

9. Comment #8822 by Anonymous on November 22, 2006 at 11:31 am

This was awesome, but I was surprised some of the ignorent people who were there and one took the stand defending god, like that lady! Wow there are some delusional scientists and that is scary, that woman was no scientist of course, I don't remember her name but she was unbelievable delusinonal

10. Comment #8868 by Dog Boots on November 22, 2006 at 3:25 pm

A gold mine. Great link. Now I know what to do the next few days of spare time.

One thought after seeing a couple of hours: The debate is not as friendly as I'd have imagined...

11. Comment #8964 by Anonymous on November 23, 2006 at 2:05 am

Re: Ray and Anonymous, please don't debase yourselves by being the prattling yes-men of Harris and Dawkins. You can respect them without demeaning the intellect of others. Nearly all of the speakers at the conference were insightful and intelligent.

12. Comment #8970 by Dog Boots on November 23, 2006 at 3:24 am

Wow. Nice reminder that these guys really know what they're talking about. So much knowledge humanity has gathered in lots of different fields.

It really makes religion look even more bleak: "...in Rev. 12:10 we learn that...blablabla..."

13. Comment #9040 by Hal on November 23, 2006 at 9:52 am

Many thanks to those who suggested answers to my question about the videos. Much appreciated.

14. Comment #9091 by Pat on November 23, 2006 at 4:04 pm

Sam Harris is unbelievable! The man just cannot be shaken from his Zen-like state. I hope he presents himself publicly more in the future.

15. Comment #9093 by Aussie on November 23, 2006 at 4:05 pm

If you are ugly Dawkins will tell you so.
Others will remark on how beautiful you are.
Yet others will skirt the issue altogether.

I think that there is a time and a place for all three approaches. However, we really need someone like Dawkins who tells it like it is because this least popular approach is the one that takes the most courage and for this reason very few people are prepared to man that gun.

16. Comment #9097 by Aussie on November 23, 2006 at 4:10 pm

Sam Harris is extremely impressive. I have both his books on order and am hoping that he is as lucid in his writing as he is in person. How anyone, even the fundies, could take umbridge at this guy I do not know.

17. Comment #9098 by Yorker on November 23, 2006 at 4:10 pm

I burned them all to a DVD and have now watched the whole thing.

Overall, it is my opinion that the conference was a great success. A healthy balance was struck and nobody — as you might expect from a panel of well-known scientists and contrary to some opinions here — talked nonsense. It was clear to me that even amongst highly educated people, upbringing and background still play a part in modes of thought. Although evidently flustered on occasion, Joan Roughgarden made no attempt to extol religious virtues and tried her best to be rational; she deserves at least a little credit for that.

Of all the speakers, Konner annoyed me most, not just because of what he said, but because of his incessant toying with the microphone and coughing nervously directly into it. I guess there were no live feedback monitors onstage, so panellists were unaware of how distracting their audio fidgeting was. Sam Harris performed well mainly because of his ability to keep anger under control and remain rational when under attack. Dawkins' public speaking experience was also evident, no fidgeting or playing with the media accoutrements; the mark of a professional public performer. Michael Shermer was an entertaining, as well as an insightful speaker.

Being in light-hearted mood today, I decided to rate the speakers with marks out of 10, not all are on this list, so apologies to those I may have missed. Several factors were taken into account in my rating scheme; e.g. content, attention holding ability, entertainment value, charisma, general interest, and presentation skills. I would find it instructive to see how others would score. No-one was perfect, so there are no 10's; in parenthesis is my assessment of each one's best attributes.

Carolyn Porco 9 (great enthusiasm)
Sam Harris 9 (great self-control)
Richard Dawkins 8 (polished performer)
Lawrence Krauss 8 (logical & insightful)
Patricia Churchland 8 (great enthusiasm)
Mahzarin Banaji 8 (original & entertaining)
Steven Weinberg 7 (logical & honest)
Michael Shermer 7 (insightful & entertaining)
Harry Kroto 7 (enthusiastic & charming)
Neil Tyson 6 (entertaining)
Elizabeth Loftus 6 (charming & honest)
Joan Roughgarden 5 (honest)
Susan Neiman 5 (analytical)

Finally, a word about two people not on my list. Ten years ago, Paul Davies would have been a high scorer, his books at that time were very good, sadly, it seems like he writes to curry favour with the Templeton Foundation nowadays and so I see him as something of a turncoat. Lastly, I've always liked Ann Druyan; she's an intelligent, animated and attractive lady but not on the list because it seemed like she was there basically to say a few words in honour of Carl, nevertheless, she remains a favourite with me.

I for one, look forward to next year's event.

18. Comment #9144 by Mark Davis on November 23, 2006 at 6:56 pm

I liked Dr. Weinberg's plug for humor being a satisfying part of the atheist viewpoint. Theists have no idea how absurd and ironic much of the nonsense of supernatural belief provides. Ted Haggard and all the scandals are easy targets, but I still find it funny that it is 2006 and the President of the United States firmly believes that he is in communication with the creator of the Universe via his interpretations of a book written 2000 years ago by a small population living in the Middle East about their experiences in discovering the nature of God. I wonder if he has the conviction to invoke God in the situation room? "Well, General Smith, I've weighed the evidence and then I spoke with the creator of the Universe and he thinks we should invade." I'd hate to think that his decision making process really is influenced by private conversations with the All Mighty.

19. Comment #9151 by Aussie on November 23, 2006 at 7:12 pm

"I'd hate to think that his (GWB) decision making process really is influenced by private conversations with the All Mighty."

You had better get used to the idea!

20. Comment #9323 by Anonymous on November 24, 2006 at 12:53 pm

Still it is a religios world, even some of scientists are still ass licking religious supporting, it is a freaking lonely world out there for people with working brain, I am dissapointed with so called some scientists' religion supporting views, they just don't get it. It will be too late before WWIII starts , scientist should stop kissing religious asses and try to educate people instead of hiding. That's why Richard Dawkins and Harris are my HERO!!! They don't suck up, they were lonely at the meeting!

21. Comment #9340 by Anonymous on November 24, 2006 at 2:01 pm

Mwaha, Ramachandran's comments about Bush and ID were priceless...

22. Comment #9466 by Basil on November 24, 2006 at 9:13 pm

I have just surfaced for air after immersing myself in these videos for far too long! I found them nothing short of fascinating. It's a rare treat to see such distinguished minds in dialogue with each other, albeit with startling (and exhilerating) frankness and utter disregard for deference borne of politeness.
I, for one, have learned a lot from this and have been given several new avenues of investigation to explore.
Thanks to all.

23. Comment #9469 by Randy Ping on November 24, 2006 at 9:25 pm

Man, I can watch Tyson over and over and over. I thinkhis was the most pointed in a way.

24. Comment #9612 by Yorker on November 25, 2006 at 9:06 am

Comment #9498 by Jason B

>>Gordon Clark destroyed science.<<

Holy shit! I just read that Gordon Clark rubbish, it seems designed to subvert the mind of religious dupes with limited reasoning ability. The author doesn't know the difference between theory and idea, and tries to say that science is nothing to worry about - just be faithful.

Jason, using this statement by Russell is not convincing. He was a great man but like all men, he wasn't always right. His skepticism about inductive argument has taken a heaving beating in recent years.

25. Comment #9622 by Yorker on November 25, 2006 at 9:28 am

Comment #8689 by Larry Miller

Yes, I don't think Dawkins would have said it directly as a personal comment.

>>...it appears that the UK might break up next year, largely due to the activities of the Calvinists (surely one of the gloomier Christian sects) in Scotland?<<

Nothing to worry about here, I'm Scottish and sure we won't be leaving the UK anytime soon. Remember that Scotland is the land where religion first got its butt kicked by Hume. In addition, there are far too many financial ties to England that would prevent full Scottish independance.

26. Comment #9836 by Anonymous on November 26, 2006 at 7:27 am

Here's a link to the torrent of all 10 videos: http://www.torrentbox.com/torrent_details?id=77449

27. Comment #10399 by Aussie on November 28, 2006 at 2:58 am

Compelling viewing. Stimulating discourse. I cannot remember when I have enjoyed a Conference so much. It was such a disappointment to finally get to the end of the 15 hours. I might even watch the lot all over again. Having downloaded the complete set of ten files I am distributing these on DVD to all my friends who are interested.

Heartfelt thanks to whoever had the foresight to make these proceedings available to the public.

I am now going to get some well deserved sleep.

28. Comment #10659 by Mickey on November 28, 2006 at 7:25 pm

Reverend Tyson! Haha! Wow. So beautiful. I felt like I was there with them. That one Nobel Prize winner was hilarious when he said that he's never been in a room filled with so many smart people, and he's usually around other Nobel Prize winners! :D

Yes, I was really getting a "C-SPAN for science" vibe before they even started to mention it. I was thinking, wouldn't it be great to just have a channel with this kind of stuff.

There's already a Science Channel on digital cable, and the Discovery Channel is basic cable. They show COSMOS, and that's cool, we need that, but we don't need more of that.

I want to see debates. People tearing each other's ideas to shreds, and then have coffee and tea. That's science!

29. Comment #10938 by Laurence Boyce on December 1, 2006 at 1:36 pm

Here are some facetious ratings in order of appearance:

Steven Weinberg – A bit ponderous.
Lawrence Krauss – A bit rambling and incoherent.
Sam Harris – My personal hero.
Michael Shermer – Amusing and easy going.
Neil deGrasse Tyson – Funny guy, but goes on a bit too long.
Joan Roughgarden – Quick, call security! A sad confused old lady has just wandered into the lecture theatre!
Richard Dawkins – Masterful and merciless.
Carolyn Porco – Miss Saturn.
Stuart Hameroff – The conference crank.
V.S. Ramachandran – Entertaining, informative, and interesting.
Paul Davies – The turtle man.
Steven Nadler – The conference philosopher.
Patricia Churchland – The school mistress.
Susan Neiman – Tiresome.
Loyal Rue – Vaguely interesting.
Elizabeth Loftus – Quite interesting.
Mahzarin Banaji – Somewhat interesting.
Scott Atran – Repeat after me: it's got nothing to do with religion!
Harold Kroto – Did I tell you that I was awarded a Nobel prize?
Charles Harper – Templetonian obfuscation.
Ann Druyan – Touching and eloquent.
Jim Woodward – It's got nothing to do with religion!
Melvin Konner – It's got absolutely nothing to do with religion!
Paul Churchland – A master class in public speaking without notes.
Richard Sloan – The medic.

30. Comment #11564 by RobS on December 5, 2006 at 2:15 pm

I also burned all to my hard disk and spent 4 days worth of free time sucking down the entire conference. What an amazing group.

1. I enjoyed the neuro scientists bringing a bit of experimental science to bear on the topics.

2. Harris and Dawkins remain prophets (though Dennett would be joining them if he were in attendance.) By prophet I mean "people discussing truths in a way that is SO far ahead of what the general populace is ready to deal with."

3. All the people who want to turn Sam Harris' basic point that "dogmatic, blind faith is not a virture and should not be taught, and assertions of its virtue should be challenged" into "you say you can disprove god and that all religion should be immediately abolished" ought to stay away from academic conferences and debates.

4. While thoroughly enjoyable, Tyson has some flaws. His finale was self aggrandizing performance, and his first comments (session 1? 2?) badly equate his concept of "intelligent design" with "The Intelligent Design Movement" in a way that I think gives cover to the anti-scientific folks in that movement.

5. Ann Druyan's gentle rebuke of the Job quoting believer was one of the most eloquent, impromptu statements I've ever seen.

6. The Templeton Foundation should be actively resisted by anyone who has a love of science, truth and intellectual honesty. The Templeton VP/apologist immediately took to attacking the motives of the other presenters, rather than dealing with their arguments. He called them naive and simplistic, but did not provide counter arguments. Pathetic!!

7. The guy who made a point about Dawkin's title as "Professor of Public Understanding of Science" may be on to something. Could Richard do more to publicly and cleverly illuminate the method, facts, peer review, logic etc. that support the scientific enterprise, in a more educational way, rather than in an attacking atheist way? Not that I don't like the attacking atheist approach, but there might be fertile territory to work in that area.

8. The fellow going on about quantuum states of consciousness was a waste of time (IMHO). When you have to resort to rhetorical tactics like saying (paraphrased liberally), "The truth I have is just too complex to be explained without jargon, in a short time, and to the likes of you lot" then you probably haven't really worked to expose your truths in a way that they will reach a general audience.

10. Continued hammering on Harris' central point that religion asserts a privileged realm of knowledge not accessible to reason is the path to success.

Other Comments by RobS

31. Comment #11623 by Taz Hameer on December 6, 2006 at 3:58 am

The short clip of this video was hilarious and superb! Two thumbs up!

Other Comments by Taz Hameer

32. Comment #11839 by sparkie_t on December 7, 2006 at 3:46 pm

Hi there, just a heads up:

check out ann drydon's(?spelling) comment at the end about sciences role in spirituality.

prob the most moving thing i've heard in a long time. makes me (as a novice scientist - currently undertaking an undergrad research study) feel very connected with a community, more so than i have ever felt before in my life.


run time ~1hr 44mins (video 4) if you cant watch it all

Other Comments by sparkie_t

33. Comment #11944 by jose on December 8, 2006 at 12:30 pm

Am watching the 4th session as i type and have found it fascinating so far, with the exception of the quantum conscious bit which went way over my head. Makes me wish i'd carried on with science instead of the Politics degree i'm in the middle of. Oh and is the torrent download of this legal? I'd love a copy to show to people.

Other Comments by jose

34. Comment #12059 by keith on December 10, 2006 at 1:49 am

I'm a little confused about Scott Atran's position. After the Beyond Belief conference he claimed:
I do not criticize Sam Harris, or those he identifies with, for wanting to rid the world of dogmatically-held beliefs that are vapid, barbarous, anachronistic and wrong. I object to their manner of combating such beliefs, which is often scientifically baseless, psychologically uninformed, politically naïve, and counterproductive for goals we share. And I agree with Dan Dennett that silence in the face of dangerous lunacy, or even in the face of moderate unreasonableness, "can be just as culpable as lying."
Now what, precisely, is 'scientifically baseless'? Clearly not the idea that dogmatically-held beliefs are dangerous because he agrees with Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins on this. Then he really must mean what he says, that their method of criticising dogma/religion is scientifically baseless. But have they ever claimed that their approach is scientifically proven to be effective? I don't think so. In fact, Richard Dawkins conceded as much at the conference on two occasions, saying that his eyes were more on the bigger war against unreason than the battle against religion. For this, he feels, the truth might be the best long-term weapon. He also admitted that his method would probably not convert any dyed-in-the-wool believers but might just tip some waverers onto the side of Atheism. I have the feeling that Scott Atran was conflating, either consciously (as a way of allying himself with the religiously-friendly at the conference) or unconsciously, the issues of whether to combat religion and how to combat it. Either this or he was simply spraying bullets wildly in all directions in the hope of hitting something.
Perhaps he should have let us in on his own chosen method of tackling what he admits is a problem. We know it isn't the 'unscientifically-based', head-on style of Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins, and he agrees with Dan Dennett that silence "can be just as culpable as lying". I further suspect it isn't the 'let's simply portray science in a more exciting way' approach, since various speakers at the conference advocated this approach prior to Scott Atran's outburst, in which he upbraided almost everyone present for their lack of insight and rigour. So what is his own scientifically-based method? And what is all the scientific evidence Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins are maliciously ignoring, simply so that they can give vent to their religious hatred? Maybe Scott Atran should have given us a clue as to what his better approach was so that we could have evaluated it for ourselves rather than just taking his word for it. That would have been more scientific. Or did he actually produce the evidence and tell us his chosen method of tackling the problem and I somehow missed it? It's more than possible, what with all the talk of Scott's heroic efforts to deal with suicide bombers. (No, no, I'm sure he only mentioned this for its relevance). Or is he suggesting that we all become suicide bomber councillors? Is this his scientifically-based approach? If so, I won't be able to help much. I have a day job and I won't be able to attend sessions unless they are held in the evenings - and at my local school in the heart of rural England.
It seems to me that Scott Atran wants it both ways: to be with the highbrows on the side of reason while playing the champion of the down-trodden, put-upon religious lowbrows. Perhaps he sees himself as a kind of latter-day Robin Hood. Someone ought to tell him that by sitting on the fence he's likely to get an arrow from both sides. Second thoughts, don't tell him.

Other Comments by keith

35. Comment #12849 by Gabor Varga on December 14, 2006 at 3:57 am

Well, it took me several days of staying awake until the sun came out, but I have finished watching all 15 hours. This was fantastic, and I enjoyed it greatly. Of course it's easy to enjoy 15 hours of a conference that mainly re-inforces ones own beliefs. Though I claim to be open minded, and say that I am willing to listen to all sides of an argument, I seriously doubt, that I would have been able to watch anything this long that was prepared by a religious group, trying to make their arguments for their particular belief system. So, I am perhaps a bit of a hypocrite.
Also, some of the points made, were over my head, and there were instances, where I had absolutely no idea at all, what was being said. I loved how articulate everyone was, though it made me realize my short comings, when it comes to expressing my cognitive thoughts verbally. However, I am inspired to better myself regarding this.
Even though there were a few points made that I do not agree with, I feel that every speaker was outstanding.

Other Comments by Gabor Varga

36. Comment #15155 by Lionel A on December 29, 2006 at 7:29 am

Well it is taking me awhile to get through these videos due to other commitments (and the need to download a number of sessions again that were corrupted first time around) and am now about 3/4 through Session 9 with a heated discussion going on between Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins on one side and Melvine Konner on the other, with occasional interjections from Jim Woodward.

It seems to me that Konner just does not get the picture with respect to the way that religion underpins the reasons for much of the conflict in the world today, let alone in the past.

Neither can he seem to grasp that the Nuremberg rallies are being used to equate their mass hysteria effect with the similar effect generated by religious fundamentalists and their methods today.

To challenge, Dawkins in particular, with 'You wouldn't like to get rid of all the bacteria in the human body..' as some kind of analogy with ridding the world of religion was foolish in the extreme.

As much as I appreciated much of Konner's talk anybody who can come out with such an analogy, even off-the-cuff, is clearly prey to much woolly thinking.

Other Comments by Lionel A

37. Comment #15162 by jbannon on December 29, 2006 at 8:18 am

I've watched all the sessions over the past few days and have it bookmarked to watch again. It is difficult to give an overall assessment of such a long conference.

Scott Atran had some good points, particularly on the psychology of terrorism, and I felt that I agreed with his point that the conference didn't really address the issue of human irrationality properly. Let's face it, we're all irrational at some time, even scientists. I also agree with him on the idea of memes but that is a separate discussion.

As an aside, I wonder if science is really as rational as many of the respondents supposed. Sure, when looking at papers it all appears very reasonable and rational but I wonder if the process of arriving at the results is as rational as the presentation appears. I'll take a bet that it is nowhere near as solidly rational as it at appears: there will be trial-and-error, intuition, flashes of inspiration and so forth. This pretty much holds for all human beings no matter what the field of endeavour.

Joan Roughgarden I think made some good points over the kind of language used in Darwinian theory and a plea to make sure we are covering all the bases. She got a rough ride from Richard which was a bit unjust in my view. Mind you, her use of the parable of the mustard seed and the parable of the sower left me with a nasty taste in my mouth. The parable of the sower as she presented it was sure to be interpreted as having one very bad meaning by religionists.

I think on balance that the psychologists and social scientists made good contributions in spite of the negative comments made above.

That's just a sample and much more could be said about the other presenters, much of which were excellent and good fun. Overall though I felt that in this kind of rareified intellectual atmosphere insufficient attention was paid to what life is actually like in the trenches. I would have appreciated more in that area.

Other Comments by jbannon

38. Comment #15311 by Cassandra on December 30, 2006 at 9:36 am

Lionel A said

"To challenge, Dawkins in particular, with 'You wouldn't like to get rid of all the bacteria in the human body..' as some kind of analogy with ridding the world of religion was foolish in the extreme."

Uh, it was Richard who originated the analogy by saying diseases are not all caused by viruses, some are caused by bacteria so I think your charge of "wooliness" is right, but directed at the wrong person.

Other Comments by Cassandra

39. Comment #15312 by Cassandra on December 30, 2006 at 9:44 am

I am an atheist. No buttery about that!

I watched most of the sometimes tedious 15 hours. I was impressed by some people. Tyson is great! Jim Woodward, Scott Atran and especially Mel Konner were unusual in that they wanted some evidence which is not unreasonable for science, is it?

Konner gave a couple of examples of peer reviewed work that showed religiosity was heritable and that it gave some protection against mental illness. Is that all there is? If you are going to hypothesize that "Religion is bad and we must get rid of it", then you ought to have some evidence for that. I mean, doesn't science work like that any more?

Konner's point, inter alia, was that Richard and people like him had done no work to show the relative good provided by religion compared to its harm. Nor do Sam or Richard's books examine what would happen if religion were abolished. It's a fair comment.

Then Konner made hilarious fun of Richard engaging a little girl, as he does in "Unveaving the Rainbow" in a conversation about statistics in order to disabuse her faith in Father Christmas (wherein he fails - and misses a big point too).

Anyway, Richard said very little in reply, he simply hid behind Sam Harris's bluster as he so often did only piping up to tell Konner that he was "pessimistic" and to pour scorn on a poetic aside originally attributable to Golda Meir. Hmmm. I would have said Konner was "realistic and scientific".

Only LATER, MUCH LATER possibly the next day, when Konner was safely long gone, did Richard say he was WOULD have asked for an apology from Konner for his remarks about the little girl. Sure, of course he would. Richard doesn't seem to do so well when he is surrounded by his peers and superiors when they don't agree with him. Konner made him look silly and Richard compounded it by drawing attention to that.

Did it really take so long for someone (Konner again) to point out that Richard's "consciousness raising" in saying that "calling a child a catholic child is child abuse" is an abuse of the word abuse. When we say "A Catholic Child" we mean a child brought up in a Catholic household of Catholic traditions, not that she is familiar with the catechism and transubstantiation and all that nonsense. Richard's "consciousness raising", well, it needs some work IMHO.

If Science had a problem with religion, I don't think Richard's and Sam's strident and unresearched polemic is neccessarily going to help much. If anything, it may even help those who would poison the minds of American children with creationism which would be counter productive to say the least. I'm sad about that.

Other Comments by Cassandra

40. Comment #15622 by Jonathan Dore on January 1, 2007 at 5:03 pm

Comment 73 by Cassandra.
I saw this session too, but came away with a very different impression of who was scoring the points. Harris made mincemeat of Konner and Woodward, and by the time Dawkins made his outburst at their pessimism I felt it was long overdue: both of them had exhibited the same shoulder-shrugging, let's-just-give-up attitude towards reducing the influence of religion on society, or even challenging that influence, which they had both, in their talks, encapsulated in the sarcastic phrase "Good luck!" -- a phrase I can imagine a mid-18th century bien-pensant quipping towards those fools who had the temerity to argue for the abolition of slavery. Not just that they thought it was a hopeless task; they didn't even seem to think it worth attempting. Totally lacking from either of them was any sense of urgency in engaging with the major problem that religion has become for the modern world.

"If you are going to hypothesize that "Religion is bad and we must get rid of it", then you ought to have some evidence for that."

This statement beggars belief. We're not talking about an obscure phenomenon for which evidence has to be uncovered by painstaking research: evidence for the proposition that "religion is bad" has been a matter of historical record for as long as there have been historical records. Try Gibbon's "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" for starters, or a history of the Thirty Years' War, or of the Crusades, or of the Inquisition. Try thinking of the psychological harm done to generations of people through scaring them witless with stories of hellfire. If none of this counts as evidence in your book, please tell us what would.

As for the relative good done by religion, you seem to be missing the point: if the supernatural does not exist, then any psychological good done by religion could only come about through a placebo effect which, in all likelihood, could be replicated by other, non-supernatural means. If you think providing psychological benefits is a good enough reason to foster faith in a proposition you believe is factually untrue, then presumably that means you don't actually care about truth and are happy for the unwashed masses to believe lies if they get some comfort from it. If that's your position, please say so honestly.

"When we say "A Catholic Child" we mean a child brought up in a Catholic household of Catholic traditions, not that she is familiar with the catechism and transubstantiation and all that nonsense."

Really? Then in that case, as Dawkins pointed out in his talk, a "Monetarist Child" must mean a child brought up by monetarist parents and in monetarist traditions (restricting the supply of pocket money, for instance, or outsourcing babysitting requirements to a local freelance supplier). If you can't see that these are formal and conceptual equivalents, then you aren't paying attention.

Another assumption that is smuggled in with your statement: people who have a vested interest in passing on their religion to their children view children not as free individuals for which they have a responsibility of care, but as their *property*, to be protected from exposure to critical thinking that might undermine their beliefs, and thus their continued membership of the group (the openly expressed competition between religious communities to "out-breed" each other is another aspect of this idea, since it clearly assumes that the children of each community "belong" to that community). Every time you describe a child as a "Catholic child" you are, whether wittingly or not, reinforcing and legitimizing that way of thinking.

Scott Atran spoke very eloquently, but his basic message was: "If you're negotiating with a suicide bomber and you start off by telling him his beliefs are nonsense, you're not going to get anywhere, so it's best if people like Harris and Dawkins shut up so that they don't upset these delicate and nuanced discussions." It all sounds very reasonable, but think a little about the assumptions being made here: that *all* public discussion of religion can be characterized as a "negotiation with suicide bombers", and should be conducted under the rigorously non-confrontational conditions suitable for such a negotiation (no matter how confrontational and irrational religionists are, of course). What this attitude is trying to do is to shut down discussion altogether by claiming that *any* confrontational public pronouncement by atheists, in *any* public context, are "unhelpful" in this "negotiation". In other words, it is allowing the suicide bombers of this world, and their supporters, to dictate the terms on which *any* public discussion can take place -- which is to say, Scott Atran has already ceded to religionists the right to shut down *all* public criticism of religion. Nice going, Scott.

Other Comments by Jonathan Dore

41. Comment #15684 by paul_c on January 2, 2007 at 3:41 am

Can someone tell me where I can get these as quicktime downloads? The link directs me to the Beyond Belief website where I can download them as google video (.gvi) files which play o.k. on my computer - but can't be burned to a DVD.
Thanks.

Other Comments by paul_c

42. Comment #15691 by Lionel A on January 2, 2007 at 4:47 am

Cassandra in comment 72 (#15311)

Your assertion that Richard originated the analogy of viruses and bacteria is quite correct and his analogy was quit valid and I stand by my assertion that Konner's response 'You wouldn't like to get rid of all the bacteria in the human body', was stupid because Konner was extrapolating and ignoring (perhaps deliberately to provoke a response, knowing as he must have done, Richard's deep understanding of the mechanisms of life and the evolution behind them) the prime function of bacteria in many processes inside body and without which we could not survive.

Perhaps by accusing Konner of woolly thinking I was being too kind as it is distinctly probable that he was being deliberately provocative. Indeed, watching this session again I sense the almost hidden smug satisfaction with which Konner rounds up a point and then sips from his water bottle. I have now found Konner much less impressive.

Konner accuses Richard of always blaming just religious dogma (01:58:20 session 9), Richard does not and if Konner had been listening to Richard he would have realised that. Konner appears here, to finish putting over his point and switching off. Just because with his latest book, and earlier, Richard has concentrated on religious dogma does not mean that this is all that he considers responsible for massacres in the world. However much ethnic tension in the world is related to religion, that is an inescapable truth which should not be lost sight of.

That Konner had to ask what the dogma was that was behind Hutu government forces massacring 800000 Tutsis in Rwanda demonstrated the conceptual blinkers that this man must be wearing. I suggest that Mr Konner does some research (Harris tries to help him out by citing a book 'Machete Season' but Konner, in overbearing mode, clearly doesn't want to know and talks Harris down for a moment or two so that the reference is all but lost) and learn what the different belief systems were that underpinned that tension between the two factions.

Richard earlier (01:55:02 session 9) correctly highlighted the basic, negative, approach of Konner's, and Woodward's, arguments which is that religion is here to stay so there is no point in even trying to argue against it in order to diminish, let alone extinguish, its baleful effects and that it is this sort of argument that is causing a road-block in the efforts to improve inter-human relationships. Richard correctly dismisses the reasoning that because it is difficult to counter the effects of religion that it is pointless trying and that we should give up.

Richard is absolutely right in questioning such accommodating ideas whith his, 'I believe in the human race and the human race believes in god. Can't we grow out of that?' After all, as he frequently points out, most have grown out of a belief in the tooth fairy and Father Christmas. What is the blockage that is stopping some moving a stage further? It is the very woolly thinking of folk like Woodward and Konner.

Other Comments by Lionel A

43. Comment #15692 by Cassandra on January 2, 2007 at 5:33 am

Re: Comment 74 by John Dore

JD: "I saw this session too, but came away with a very different impression of who was scoring the points."

Well that's hardly surprizing, after all we are standing here in the cloisters of the "Church of Dawkinism" and I am comitting the sin of heresy, so to speak. One would expect his acolytes to attack my remarks. As a matter of fact I was very concerned that what I had written might have been taken down immediately so I wrote off with copies to Dr Konner, whom I did not know at the time but now know him to be a perfect gentleman.

So John Dore and I have different impressions. Well that's splendid. Argument is the hot fat that lubricates the wheels of progress. But let's not jump out of the pan.

On my statement: "If you are going to hypothesize that "Religion is bad and we must get rid of it", then you ought to have some evidence for that.",

JD says: This statement beggars belief.

Evidenly JD's belief is easily beggared. May I remind him that Gibbons Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, a history of the 30 years war, or even the Inquisition were simply history moving for the reasons history moves, which has often been power struggles, some people wanting what others have (Germany wanting an empire springs to mind in the Great War) or, in the case of the Inquisition simply the Church husbanding its power. The 30 years war included elements of French versus Hapdburg power. Nor were the results neccessarily bad. Would you like history to be static, to be a Roman legionary today?

To misuse history as empirical evidence for the very new hypothesis that religion is bad and should be gotten rid of simply betrays a staggering lack up understanding of human nature and, BTW, is not science. The decline and fall of the Roman empire may be empirical evidence for something but not the hypothesis at hand.

JD then says: As for the relative good done by religion, you seem to be missing the point: if the supernatural does not exist, then any psychological good done by religion could only come about through a placebo effect which, in all likelihood, could be replicated by other, non-supernatural means.

You'll note how JD efforlessly attempts to arrange things so that supernatural becomes a synonym for religion. It isn't. The supernatural does not exist by definition, nothing can be "super" natural. Religion, on the other hand does exist, is not supernatural and is a wholly different. A nun acting as a nurse is religious and, as she administers to sick people, is evidently doing good irrespective of what her beliefs are concerning the supernatural. She is motivated by religion though. I'm sure you can think of many more examples religion doing good. Therefore religion must have powers for good as well as bad. Big rough tough heavily armed soldiers on the eve of battle seek out the religious chaplain. Why? For a placebo effect? There seems to be a serious lack of knowledge of human nature yet again. Common knowledge, whatever that is, leads us to believe, entirely unscientifically, that the Islamic bombers do it for the 72 virgins. Scott Atran poured derision on that oversimplification and, again, a very poor understanding of human nature.

So, I'll claim more solidly that the childishly simple hypothesis that "all religion is bad and should be stopped" is not born out by scientific examination at all, there hardly is any for one thing, and even common sense shows that it is rather silly even to claim. It seems to me that both Richard and Scott have written polemics and, in Richard's case at least, has lent his formidable reputation to this and called it science. It isn't, not as most of us understand science. Furthermore, I don't think his reputation will neccessarily do well out of it. His book sales might but that's quite a different thing.

JD says about the "Catholic Child"": Really? Then in that case, as Dawkins pointed out in his talk, a "Monetarist Child" must mean a child brought up by monetarist parents and in monetarist traditions.

I suggest that JD is getting a little frantic. We don't have monetarist families with long cultural traditions of monetarism. We do have Catholic families with centuries long traditions of Catholicism. I would suggest that there is a fundamental difference between monetarism and Catholicism. Monetarism is a utilitarian subject involving trade. Catholicism is different, it is a religion and religions are concerned with questions that really do cause us great difficulty. For instance, they deal with questions of consciousness, sentience, death, and life's purpose.

Getting rid of religion, I anticipate, will imply disabusing the religious of their satisfying (to them) beliefs. It will imply science offering all religious people what we have accepted, that at brain death we re-enter the oblivion whence we came. How many people will accept that? What science has been done to attempt to find out?

If a person is dying and tells you it doesn't matter because he is going to heaven, how many people here would tell him that he is not and that he is going to oblivion instead? I suspect very few (Richard amongst them since he said something like that when Dr Konner asked him the night before his talk). Why is that? Where is your intellectual honesty?

JD says: "Another assumption that is smuggled in with your statement: people who have a vested interest in passing on their religion to their children view children not as free individuals for which they have a responsibility of care, but as their *property*, to be protected from exposure to critical thinking that might undermine their beliefs, and thus their continued membership of the group (the openly expressed competition between religious communities to "out-breed" each other is another aspect of this idea, since it clearly assumes that the children of each community "belong" to that community). Every time you describe a child as a "Catholic child" you are, whether wittingly or not, reinforcing and legitimizing that way of thinking."

I'm not a smuggler, I'm a straight speaker. Richard himself explains the Darwinian advantage of children being totally gullible open books upon which we, the parents (should it be anyone else?), are obliged to write. Presumably, as Dawkinian Atheists, many of the people here will have told their children something along the lines of "You are here to enjoy your lives as best you can, helping to steward the world where possible along the way for your children after you and then you will die and enter an everlasting oblivion whence you came" or something like that, perhaps more positively perhaps less. Very good. How do you propose to tell religious people to do that? And when religious people refuse to believe it, how will you convince them otherwise? What scientific evidence will you present that there is no desirable afterlife (only achievable by blind faith of course)? Catholic parents tell their children to be good Catholics, I would suggest, not directly for the good of Catholicism, though it comes into it of course, but because they truly honestly do not want their kids to suffer the fires of hell. Well, what does science have that will extinguish those fires? I would suggest you CANNOT fight religion by reason simply because religion is not reasonable. It isn't susceptible to reason. No religion is. The children are but parents control their children. Who would take the children away to teach them otherwise? A very scary thought don't you think? That was one of the things Dr Konner was trying to point out IMHO.

I've left Scott Atran since what he has said is a subset of the scientific questions I have considered and I have mentioned him already. I hear a great deal of polemic, I hear very little scientific substance.

Why is that?

Other Comments by Cassandra

44. Comment #15700 by Cassandra on January 2, 2007 at 6:06 am

My profound apologies for the multiple entries of my post. I had considerable problems with my PC and connection. and I did not realize that they were going up.

Please could the moderators delete the duplicates.

Thank you.

Other Comments by Cassandra

45. Comment #15704 by Lionel A on January 2, 2007 at 6:38 am

Cassandra WRT your 82 (#15700) and 77-81.

And there was me thinking that you were just trying to ram home your message. :-(|

When I first opened up in this site's home page I noted all the new entries from you and thought, 'Strewth, Cassandra has been busy!';-)

Other Comments by Lionel A

46. Comment #15705 by Cassandra on January 2, 2007 at 6:53 am

Lionel A

No, I'm afraid technology got the better of me. I imagined the error messages I was recieving meant that my posts were being lost in digital oblivion.

Sadly I was wrong and I hope the moderators will delete all of the copies. The last post of the duplicates is the "correct" one.

I offer my apologies for being blindsided by the "magic" of the web. I even pressed "spam" on one of them myself to show good faith (whoops)!!!

Sorry :(

Other Comments by Cassandra

47. Comment #15712 by Lionel A on January 2, 2007 at 7:35 am

Cassandra

Konner's '… couple of examples of peer reviewed work that showed religiosity was heritable and that it gave some protection against mental illness' may require further inspection. Unfortunately, by no longer moving through academic circles, I am not in a position to inspect and discuss with qualified commentators.

Although I have found this:

Intrinsic and extrinsic religiousness: genetic and environmental influences and personality correlates
Authors: Bouchard Jr, Thomas J.; McGue, Matt; Lykken, David; Tellegen, Auke
Source: Twin Research, Volume 2, Number 2, 1 June 1999, pp. 88-98(11)
Publisher: Australian Academic Press

Koenig cited at:

http://www.acperesearch.net/aug05.html

seems to be based on a small and localised sample.

Kendler I found at:

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/451741

Another thing that strikes me here is the concentration on using twins for research. Sure I can see the thinking behind this methodology, but does not the use of twins raise other biological inheritance isssues. Perhaps this is one for Richard to have a look at in the light of his extensive knowledge in that field. Meanwhile, as time permits, I shall be looking into his books again at relevant sections.

There may be an element of inheritance involved here (after all as I believe that God and religion is all in the brain then the way brains are wired up may be to some extent heritable), but are you sure it is genetic inheritance rather than nurture (using such a term in what could be classed as a negative way) at work here?

Also, protection against mental illness, I beg to differ, I have felt the effects of mental illness brought on by religiosity all my life. My grandfather was a Baptist minister and was demonstrably insane for much of his later life and he had a definite negative impact on the mental attitudes of my mother and her sisters.

Also one of his grandchildren is overtly religious and at the same time rather unstable another feature that I have felt the impact of. I didn't use the word 'baleful' lightly in a previous post. And before you cry, 'that goes to support the role of heredity', I beg to differ. I was infected from an early age by virtue of being immersed in it all, literally at one point, but have escaped as the wonders of scientific discovery and rationality have increased their impact.

Further, and picking up on your earlier post, your seeming glee at Konner making 'hilarious fun of Richard' tells me much about the balance of your current thinking. And people consider Dawkins rude!

Now as for 'acolytes' of Dawkins, from within the 'Church of Dawkins' attacking your remarks – what should you expect when you use inflammatory language such as this.

However, don't fool yourself; I don't think that you should worry that your remarks will be pulled off, after all most of us are considerably more tolerant than you seem to be yourself.

Other Comments by Lionel A

48. Comment #15726 by Lionel A on January 2, 2007 at 9:41 am

Cassandra

I have only just now managed to begin watching Session 10 and I would like to point you to Richard's short contribution in this session at 01:00:46 where he states that he took strong exception to Konner's remarks with respect to, in 'Unweaving the Rainbow', asking a 6-year old girl to think about how long it would take Santa Claus to go down all the chimneys in the world, and stated that if Konner had still been at the conference that he would have demanded an apology.

To be sure Richard could have had a chance to do that during Session 9 but perhaps, not knowing that Konner was leaving as seems to be the case, he was saving that for a more opportune moment.

Again, I find your seeming glee over Konner's swipe at Dawkins rather unhelpful to discourse.

Other Comments by Lionel A

49. Comment #16138 by wayne on January 4, 2007 at 10:06 pm

I loved Neil de Grasse Tyson. It's easy to see why he is hosts his on TV show.

Other Comments by wayne

50. Comment #17678 by Linda on January 15, 2007 at 12:59 pm

One of the people in the audience defending religion while trying to draw an analogy with regards to alcohol prohibition as a warning about banning religion seems to have missed the point. No one has suggested a ban on religion but rather a moratorium on the promotion and protection of superstition within the culture. It is also important to realize that religion is something that should be practiced by consenting adults, as it is immoral to use abstract or even physical threats against the developing minds of children to make them believe in the unproven supernatural. Just as it is illegal and immoral to give alcohol to children so is it to indoctrinate their developing minds.

I would consider religious conditioning of children as an example of the Stockholm Syndrome a term which describes the behaviour of kidnap victims who become sympathetic to their captors. Children are essentially a captive audience and have little recourse against the terrors and nightmare scenarios implanted in their imagination through religious myths.

This is a topic of discussion on the BBC MB:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbreligion/F2213237?thread=3804382

There is a link on the thread to one section of the series:
http://beyondbelief2006.org/Watch/watch.php?Video=Session%209

Other Comments by Linda