101. Comment #144478 by Lionspoint on March 16, 2008 at 7:09 am

The only thing I am 100% sure of is that Zeus is on his throne above Greece getting really mad at those Christians who REFUSE to worship him.

And as far as there being no transitional forms, perhaps more Americans should get out of churches and into museums.

Other Comments by Lionspoint

102. Comment #144481 by irate_atheist on March 16, 2008 at 7:23 am

103. Comment #144478 by Lionspoint -

And as far as there being no transitional forms, perhaps more Americans should get out of churches and into museums.

Indeed. Nothing would cheer me further than a few fossilised Americans lying on a bench.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

103. Comment #144482 by Geoff on March 16, 2008 at 7:27 am

96. Comment #144390 by beauroland

Yeah, what was it that the caller thought it stood for? "After Death", or something?

Other Comments by Geoff

104. Comment #144492 by Mark Smith on March 16, 2008 at 8:08 am

Richard Morgan

"people"?
Which "people"?

Anybody listening to the show

I guess what you're trying to say is that mocking the stupidity of certain beliefs is counter-productive to the atheist cause.

Not at all. I have no difficulty with mocking beliefs (in appropriate circumstances). What I am trying to say is that he asserts (or at least appears to get very close to asserting) something which is clearly wrong, namely that believers as a group are not very intelligent. For example, he said he did not think Obama can really be a believer, because, quote: 'He is a very intelligent man. I can't believe he really believes in God … I doubt if any really intelligent educated person in this country or any other country really believes in God.' Close quote

And in answer to Colmes' question, 'You don't believe an intelligent sentient being can believe in God?' RD indicated that such a being could believe in the Einsteinian type of god, but when it comes to, quote: 'There is a God in heaven and there is Jesus who died for your sins and did miracles and turned water into wine …', he appeared to indicate that an intelligent person cannot believe this.

RD did then focus in on those who believe the Earth is 6000 years old, and perhaps (though I don't think he was clear on this) when pressed he might say intelligent people do believe these things it is just that they shouldn't. Nevertheless, I think many listeners will take RD to be at least implying that believers are stupid. And they will know this is just not true. As with all groups, there are all levels of intelligence among believers.

Other Comments by Mark Smith

105. Comment #144513 by Spin-oza on March 16, 2008 at 9:12 am

FROM Jemy M posted earlier and worth repeating:

"Why did the bible survive for 2000 years? It was introduced 393, the birth of Jesus was decided 531. Throughout 500 years pagans were slain and tortured in the most gruesome ways. It took an extra 700 years until the society had evolved into a state in which you did not risk the death penalty for doubting and another 2-300 years before you were guaranteed your freedom even if you started to question the authority of church. We are now living here after more than a thousand years of indoctrination and the threat of death to the ones who would not support it. Only during the 1900, as soon as people started to use their legal right to question the bible, it's number of followers started to fall like a rock and it will continue to fall until it's either gone or it's again illegal to criticize it."

I commented a few hours ago... but apparently it has evaporated into cyberspace and it does not appear... OR was met with (ugly) censorship.

I had made the point that Dr. Dawkins was lobbed a "softball" by the ignoramus that ranted about "no transitional forms" and (passsively) let that stooge bluster and control the airwaves. Sad, since this is Dr. Dawkin's firm area of expertise... and he only and barely audibly, as an afterthought, mention TIKTAALIK, mumbling it was a fish to amphibian transitional form when pressed by Alan Comes.

SHEESH... I would have RD would have seized this opportunity by the proverbial horns and silenced the buffoon with a exhuasting and detailed list of elegant transitionals, including the human-family-shrub, and would have simultaneously educated and enlightend those listening.

Finally, BOBZAI questioned whether it was "patronizing" or demeaning to ascribe relgious beliefs to "childhood indoctrination". I think the evidence for this is unassailable. Additionally, it is our duty as reason-based to point out the UNreasonableness of the social implications of the faith-based, believing in that which is not only UNsupported by reason and the Nature of the Universe revealed by science, but contradicts them both while standing reason on its head. IT is the "900 lb Gorilla" standing in the room of our 21st century (stalled) society. By pointing to the origins of such delusional thinking, it puts the "ball" of reason and reality in their "court"... how the religious respond is beyond our control. However, as we know, most atheists were indoctrinated into one faith-dogma or another, with all the trappings and institutionalized rituals... and at some point, reason overcame the COGNITIVE DISSONANCE we had been harboring and we embraced the Natural light.

AS FOR childhood indoctrination, RGI put it pretty well...

Robert Green Ingersoll: "Why I am an Agnostic"; 1896.

"If we had been born in Constantinople, the most of us would have said: "There is no God but Allah, and Mohammed is his prophet." If our parents had lived on the banks of the Ganges, we would have been worshipers of Siva, longing for the heaven of Nirvana."

CHEERS!

Other Comments by Spin-oza

106. Comment #144518 by Bonzai on March 16, 2008 at 9:20 am

Spinoza,

If we had been born in Constantinople, the most of us would have said: "There is no God but Allah, and Mohammed is his prophet." If our parents had lived on the banks of the Ganges, we would have been worshipers of Siva, longing for the heaven of Nirvana."

If you grow up as a Muslim, you can probably identify with other Muslims who share your upbringing and language and probably know you since childhood more than say, a Zoroastrian. So if you need religion because of those human factors I described in my previous post you naturally would go for some version of Islam rather than, say Zoroastrianism.

I don't think it is very germane to just look at the numbers, As you told others on other threads many times, correlation is not the same as causation. Upbringing certain explains a lot (not completely, see below) about the particular religion one subscribes to, but it doesn't explain why he is religious in the first place. I will grant that it is a factor, obviously, but I have problem with saying that it is a main factor or the only factor. The "cultural" believers usually are pretty relax and are just nominal believers, not the seriously religious type. So are they really "indoctrinated" if they don't even particularly care what they were taught?

There are a lot of adult conversions because of the activities of missionaries for example. Why does the sales pitch of the preacher work? You can't explain that based on childhood indoctrinations.

I also wrote in another thread, many immigrants became religious after they emigrate. Again childhood indoctrinations fail to explain that.

Other Comments by Bonzai

107. Comment #144522 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on March 16, 2008 at 9:28 am

"As for religion being "a part of every observable society," if what is meant is that every society we know has sought to find some explanation for matters of deep human concern that we do not begin to understand (death, the origins of the universe, etc.), that's doubtless true. If one wants to call the constructs developed "religion," OK. I don't see what that implies, apart from the fact -- I presume it is a fact -- that people seek answers to hard questions, and where understanding reaches limits (very quickly, in most areas), they speculate, construct myths, etc. To draw conclusions about "human nature" from historical constructs of dominant societies in the past few thousand years seems to me quite a stretch." - Noam Chomsky

Something Dawkins was wrong about in my opinion. To draw conclusions about "human nature" from historical constructs of dominant societies in the past few thousand years seems to me quite a stretch. How true.

Other Comments by ThoughtsonCommonToad

108. Comment #144530 by Geoff on March 16, 2008 at 9:47 am

Bonzai:

I don't think it is very germane to just look at the numbers, As you told others on other threads many times, correlation is not the same as causation. Upbringing certain explains a lot (not completely, see below) about the particular religion one subscribes to, but it doesn't explain why he is religious in the first place. I will grant that it is a factor, obviously, but I have problem with saying that it is a main factor or the only factor. The "cultural" believers usually are pretty relax and are not seriously religious.

It seems clear to me that just looking at a world map of religions shows that it is the main factor. Of course there are exceptions, but proportionately not that many.
"Not seriously religious" looks rather like "No true Scotsman", to me.

You downplay "looking at the numbers", but surely that's the most important fact? Take the recent PEW survey, for example; conversions & immigration don't materially affect the fact that non-christian religions are statistically negligible in the US.

Other Comments by Geoff

109. Comment #144531 by Bonzai on March 16, 2008 at 9:55 am

You downplay "looking at the numbers", but surely that's the most important fact? Take the recent PEW survey, for example; conversions & immigration don't materially affect the fact that non-christian religions are statistically negligible in the US.

You didn't address my point. Read the first paragraph. Childhood upbringing explains nominal religious affiliations,--which is all that the numbers show,-- but they don't explain the intensity of belief, which I think is not that strong if you simply go to Church on Sunday or do Friday prayers. The numbers don't explain why some people become very religious while others don't in spite of the same general cultural background and upbringing,

I said it is not germane to just look at numbers, not that it is not germane to look at numbers at all.Numbers have to be interpreted.

EDIT Christianity,--especially evangelism,-- is spreaded primarily by adult conversions in Asia and Africa where it is growing most rapidly, So I think you are very wrong in saying that this is only a small factor. I am talking about globally, not just the U.S,

Other Comments by Bonzai

110. Comment #144561 by Bonzai on March 16, 2008 at 10:37 am

Geoff

Take the recent PEW survey, for example; conversions & immigration don't materially affect the fact that non-christian religions are statistically negligible in the US.

But that was not my point regarding immigrants. Overall the (first generation)immigrant population is small so even if there is a 100% conversion it probably won't show up on the national wide survey for a large country like the U.S.

The point I made was that many people seek religion when they undergo big changes in their lives, go through times of uncertainty or find themselves in vulnerable situations where they need emotional supports, social network, friendship and reassurance. Immigration is a scenario where all these happen.

What actual data show, at least for my own community,--Chinese in Toronto,--is that this community is a lot more religious than the general Canadian population and the population from which they come,--primarily Hong Kong or mainland China. The data also show that many were non religious before they arrived, they were converted to Christianity afterwards. "Childhood indoctrination" is almost a non existent factor in these cases.

I think that answers the question why some people become religious much better than a national survey that gives you just a numerical break down of nominal beliefs.

While surveys in particular demographics rarely generalize in all their details, but I think the findings of my local Chinese community do provide some broad insights into why people embrace religion,

Other Comments by Bonzai

111. Comment #144579 by dudenextdoor on March 16, 2008 at 11:10 am

I loved the show, and while I agree Alan Colmes is a doormat for Hannity on FOX, I did always think he was jewish until this interview; now I have a bit more respect for him.

Anyway, I liked how the more typical theistic arguments were brought up (and summarily debunked) on this show, but I did think the woman who phoned in asking about all the intellectual religious people she knows should have gotten a more complete response--particularly because her argument is a very common one.

I speak as the son of two doctors who are extremely religious; intelligence and faith do often go together, even when the atheist would say they do not. And it may be a general trend that the more educated people are, the less religious they are, but there really are a lot of very smart people in this world who believe the lies religion tells, and that needs to be addressed. It is totally possible to be intelligent and wrong, in other words, but other than the second caller (who was called "not-a-nutcase," the kindest compliment he could get), views were often dismissed rather than given reason for dismissal.

Good show, overall. I'm surprised I wasn't completely turned off by a FOX production, for once. And I do think Dawkins answers the criticisms I raise here in The God Delusion. But it is necessary to keep in mind that there are many smart people in this world who still believe something that simply is not true. And it must be kept at the forefront of the intellectual debate that being smart and being religious are two different things.

Other Comments by dudenextdoor

112. Comment #144580 by Geoff on March 16, 2008 at 11:14 am

I agree with your point about intensity of belief, Bonzai, and to some extent also about why people embrace religion as adults.
I think where we disagree is the proportion of those who are "born again" or whatever, as against those who are brought up with it.

This bit, again:

I will grant that [upbringing] is a factor, obviously, but I have problem with saying that it is a main factor or the only factor.

I really do think it's the main factor, though as you say, certainly not the only one.

Of course, it's difficult to quantify "how religious" someone is, but, to use a more global example, lifelong Muslims seem no less intense than recent converts, to me.

Other Comments by Geoff

113. Comment #144618 by Bonzai on March 16, 2008 at 12:42 pm

Goeff,

I think where we disagree is the proportion of those who are "born again" or whatever, as against those who are brought up with it.

Yes, I think you underestimate the proportion because the U.S. is primarily an exporter of make in the U.S.A born again Christianity so conversion from it within teh U.S. itself is probably less appreciable.

But if you look outside the head quarter of evangilism inc. a quite different pattern emerges.

Within one generation South Korea changed from a Buddhist country into a major centre of evangelicalism in Asia.

Another example is the massive conversion of Catholics to evanglical Christian sects in Latin America. These are not just minor changes with a few people converting here and there, they are big. Some Priests are saying that the Catholic Church is facing a crisis there. Since these are traditonally very strong Catholic countries the childhood indoctrination model certainly breaks down completely. Mind you for the outsider they may all be "Christians" but there are a lot of major doctrinal disagreements between the RC Church and the evangelicals.

Of course, it's difficult to quantify "how religious" someone is, but, to use a more global example, lifelong Muslims seem no less intense than recent converts, to me.

Well even within the same country, say Pakistan, the degree of religiosity differs drastically across regions and socio economical classes. I certainly think there is a big difference between Bhutto and the guys demonstrating for Mohammad cartoons. Muslims are not monolithic.

Also, even for the "life long believers", the intensity of religiosity may rise and fall, sometimes rather drastically depending on life's circumstances.

A model for religion is not very good if it doesn't take into account of degree of religiosity, for then "being religious" wouldn't be a particularly informative label.Though I am not a social scientist, but I do know that it is common sense in the social sciences not to attribute single cause to complex phenomena such as religion. That's why, to the extent that it is feasible, techniques such as multiple regression and path analysis are used to discovered the relative strength of various factors and how these factors may influence each other in some kind of complex loops. To attribute religion entirely to childhood upbringing (or any single cause for that matter) is a complete non starter.

Other Comments by Bonzai

114. Comment #144622 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on March 16, 2008 at 12:51 pm

A model for religion is not very good if it doesn't take into account of degree of religiosity, for then "being religious" wouldn't be a particularly informative label.Though I am not a social scientist, but I do know that it is common sense in the social sciences not to attribute single cause to complex phenomenon such as religiosity. That's why, to the extent that it is feasible, techniques such as multiple regression and path analysis are used to discovered the relative strength of various factors. To attribute religion entirely to childhood upbringing (or any single cause for that matter) is a complete non starter.

Scientific, Anthropological and Historical education I assume would correlate very highly with non belief. Talk to some Christians, its either wonder at the natural world, or fear of death (more fear of loved ones deaths). Its not a coincidence that people lose their religion when they learn properly about evolution, learn properly about the history of their church and the History of human societies and culture. When they learn about the brain.

Education, specifically, if not only scientific, anthropological and historical education.

Other Comments by ThoughtsonCommonToad

115. Comment #144623 by Zaphod on March 16, 2008 at 12:52 pm

One guy called in to ask Dawkins to explain the last 2,000 years of history. lol

Other Comments by Zaphod

116. Comment #144625 by Bonzai on March 16, 2008 at 12:59 pm

Its not a coincidence that people lose their religion when they learn properly about evolution, learn properly about the history of their church and the History of human societies and culture. When they learn about the brain.

Well education attainment in general (probably except theology) does correlate negatively with religiosity. It doesn't have to be a science education.

Now I don't think it is just learning facts such as evolution doing the trick,--though it is certainly important,-- education level in general also positively correlates with other factors that would undermine religiosity such as being urban middle class and a higher likihood of working in socially more liberal environment and so on.

Though I am not aware of any study, but I suspect that a highschool drop out in a major city is less likely to be religious than a highschool drop out in the rural area. "Aculturation" seems to be an important factor. "childhood indoctrination" is a part of acculturation but it is far from being all of it.

Across the globe societies that have more accessible education also tend to have better social safety nets, thus eliminating the role of churches as providers of services.

Education can be a proxy for a lot of things. That's why in social reseach sophisticated statistical techniques have to be used to untangle these relationships.

On the other hand, many creationists apparently are engineers.

Other Comments by Bonzai

117. Comment #144634 by sent2null on March 16, 2008 at 1:41 pm

Glad to see that the right wing bastion of twisted views , Faux News is at least allowing humanists a forum on their shows. I could have done without those immense commercial breaks but having Dawkin's really let his teeth out a bit when those callers started with their nonsense was a treat.

Alan Colmes plays Lou Costello to Sean Hannity's evil twisted, Bud Abbot on their television show and he's usually bulldozed in almost every argument when he tries to present centrist views (Hannity is so far to the right, to him centrist views are leftist!) In almost every Fox show, a strong right leaning demogogue is put against a weak centrist or leftist to ensure the right always comes out on top, if not in preponderance of facts but simply by the preponderance of rapid fire delivered bullshit. Good to see on the radio, Colmes has his own forum to provide the sane people in America something to listen to if they choose to listen to Faux News. (For the life of me I don't understand how any one could listen to such obvious right leaning propaganda journalism.)


Unbelievable that people are still boldly questioning (as that first lunatic did) if there are transitional fossils.

Other Comments by sent2null

118. Comment #144640 by iluvsam on March 16, 2008 at 1:53 pm

Richard did a tremendous job as always. However, to the caller who asked why Christianity has lasted so long, I wish Richard would have made the point that it had the support of (and control by) the state for over 1700 years. Every religion with support from the state has sustained itself for large periods of time.

Other Comments by iluvsam

119. Comment #144661 by Richard Morgan on March 16, 2008 at 2:28 pm

Bonzai

To attribute religion entirely to childhood upbringing (or any single cause for that matter) is a complete non starter.

Generally speaking I would agree that to attribute something as vast and as imprecise as "religion" to any single cause is unsound reasoning.
Would you say that a person's being Muslim could be entirely attributed to his being born in Saudi Arabia?
Probably.
Though I have no statistics to bear me out, I suspect that an adult who "becomes" religious has probably been exposed to the cognitive dissonance of some "invisible" entity in childhood.
Recently I asked to hear from "converts" to atheism who had actually been dyed-in-the-wool "believers" since childhood before becoming atheist.
So far I have had no replies.
Similarly, I would like to know of an adult who suddenly "sees the Light" and becomes religious, but who had grown up in social/family environment completely free of any religious/sky-daddy thinking, or even tradition.
I suppose somebody is going to say that such an environment is likely to be extremely rare.
All the same, it would be interesting to check.
I have a rather sad personal story concerning the childhood influence phenomenon.
Thirty years ago I was a raving Evangelical. It lasted about five years. During that time I had two sons with a wife from whom I was divorced when the children were still very, very young.
The older boy had the time to be exposed to hallelujah-full-praise-rowdy sessions which he loved.He was singing along with all the songs, and praying in "tongues" with great gusto by the age of four.
After the divorce, my ex-wife abandoned her religious activities, mostly because she had only started as a result of my pressure. (yeah, I know, I was a real fundie shit, I know, I know.)
I was totally separated from my sons in rather weird circumstances for over 20 years, and only found them again thanks to... Google.
And guess what - the son who was still only a tiny baby at the time of the divorce has become a non-religious scientist, but the older son "found Jesus" at the age of 23. And of course, he claims to have absolutely no memories at all of his early exposure Evangelical Christianity. In fact, he refuses the idea that his early experiences could have influences his adult choices.
What do you think?
Sure, I have no proof, but I am certainly not surprised.
OK, an anecdote is not verifiable evidence, but all the same....



PS The good news : my son is a very intelligent young man who loves reading. Already he has moved from Evangelical Christianity to ideas of becoming a Catholic. To my mind, he's evolving in the right direction, and if he continues reading and searching he will probably drift towards 99% god-free Anglicanism and then....?
Well, he has accepted all the Dawkins books I've sent him, so I remain hopeful.
"L'espoir fait vivre." as we Frenchies say!

Other Comments by Richard Morgan

120. Comment #144736 by Jamesthesecond on March 16, 2008 at 5:00 pm

Very interesting comparison by loki in Comment 18 :

...I still listen to these programs because I enjoy it as a sort of intellectual gladiatorial ring. Where, the gladiators of reason have all the amour and sharp weapons and the poor religious gladiators have nothing...

But unfortunately, if you ask me, the religious gladiators often have 90% of the spectators ( and probably the emperor too ) on their side. This perhaps answers, I think, your question further on in the text... :

Why is it that although the arguments are clearly won, people still either refuse to understand them or like myself feel the need to keep hearing them ?

So I fear, in spite of all this armour, sharp weapons and glorious victories, the gladiators of reason are still in great danger of being thrown before the lions...

-------------------

"Don't underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups..." ( unknown )

Other Comments by Jamesthesecond

121. Comment #144832 by coastalguy on March 16, 2008 at 8:28 pm

I agree with the posts regarding the Jesus historicity issue and that DR is not going there at this time. Just wondering if we could get some interviews from Earl Dougherty "Challenging the Verdict" a response to Lee Strobels "Case for Christ". Another interesting interview would be from Tom Harpur (former Anglican priest, professor and theologian) who wrote Pagan Christ in which he at long last reliquished belief in a literal Christ.

Other Comments by coastalguy

122. Comment #144833 by coastalguy on March 16, 2008 at 8:30 pm

... I mean RD not DR... probably 'cause I just got back from there.

Other Comments by coastalguy

123. Comment #144843 by mintcheerios on March 16, 2008 at 8:53 pm

"Those callers were amazing. I thought people like that were myths."

I think a lot of people find it hard to believe people like this exist, especially in Europe. The bogus idea that these people are only the fringe needs to be expelled. I get tired of moderates saying that there are only a few people like this thus people like Dawkins are mostly attacking a straw man. They wouldn't be able to say that if they lived in Texas for 23 years (or even just 23 days).

Other Comments by mintcheerios

124. Comment #144845 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on March 16, 2008 at 8:55 pm

I think a lot of people find it hard to believe people like this exist, especially in Europe. The bogus idea that these people are only the fringe needs to be expelled. I get tired of moderates saying that there are only a few people like this. They wouldn't be able to say that if they lived in Texas for 23 years (or even just 23 days).

Rather take a look at the statistics. Three quarters of the American population literally believe in religious miracles. Statistics on evolution, the devil, angels just as bad. Statistics on the rapture, 44% within their own lifetime. It goes on and on.

Other Comments by ThoughtsonCommonToad

125. Comment #144861 by jwdink on March 16, 2008 at 9:58 pm

I did find Dawkins' purport that all intelligent people don't really believe in God (and specifically applying it to Obama was even worse). There are plenty of people who are somewhere between deist and young-earther that are extremely intelligent, and it's disrespectful for Dawkins to write them off.

Other Comments by jwdink

126. Comment #144862 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on March 16, 2008 at 10:03 pm

jwdink
Yes. Depends on how you define God. Some definitions are ridiculous, others perfectly sensible. Christian, Judiasm etc, I think wrong. The proposition that there is a God that interferes in human affairs, depends what you mean. If god is the sum of physical laws, yep I believe in him. When you say you don't believe in God you have to do it case by case.

Other Comments by ThoughtsonCommonToad

127. Comment #144872 by Lammie on March 16, 2008 at 11:37 pm

#144861

There are plenty of people who are somewhere between deist and young-earther that are extremely intelligent, and it's disrespectful for Dawkins to write them off.

It really depends how you define "intelligence" - a typical definition is "Endowed with the capacity to reason" - Wikipedia had a detailed section on definitions: "Intelligence is an umbrella term used to describe a property of the mind that encompasses many related abilities, such as the capacities to reason, to plan, to solve problems, to think abstractly, to comprehend ideas, to use language, and to learn..." Certainly accordingly to these definitions Dawkins was correct in his statement.

Other Comments by Lammie

128. Comment #144945 by phaseshift on March 17, 2008 at 4:42 am

Crikes, a lot of you seem to think this interview was a blast, went well, etc. It doesn't give me a good feeling personally to hear how idiotic and stubborn a few of these callers were. It's frustrating at best, scary at worst. It reinforces the impression that many people simply will never understand how to reason, and even more - their emotional reactions scare me a bit. If I were Richard I'd be a bit freaked out. I hope he makes it through many more years of these sorts of interviews without some freak shooting him down or whatever.

That said, kudos to him and others for bringing the topic into the public arena in a positive way.

Other Comments by phaseshift

129. Comment #144996 by TIKI AL on March 17, 2008 at 6:47 am

I hope the proposed transition from the church to the museum excludes the Creation Museum.

The callers could have been in a Saturday Night Live skit. Unfortunately, I have to share Arizona with many of "them".

Other Comments by TIKI AL

130. Comment #145020 by The Soilworker on March 17, 2008 at 7:22 am

"....utter bullshit!"

Um, I just had to hit the DUMP button...



How absurd. It's satellite radio which means people pay good money to hear Dawkins say "bullshit". Brava, Richard. Let them hit the DUMP button a dozen times in any interview. Grrrr. Only in the U.S.S.A.

Other Comments by The Soilworker

131. Comment #145065 by fides_et_ratio on March 17, 2008 at 8:12 am

'I doubt if any educated intelligent person really believes in God.'

'There are about 3 or 4 good scientists in Britain who are genuinely religious.'

I wonder how RD reconciles these two opposing statements. Any suggestions?

Other Comments by fides_et_ratio

132. Comment #145208 by Tyler Durden on March 17, 2008 at 11:16 am

Comment #145065 by fides_et_ratio

'I doubt if any educated intelligent person really believes in God.'

'There are about 3 or 4 good scientists in Britain who are genuinely religious.'

I wonder how RD reconciles these two opposing statements. Any suggestions?

Er, they're deluded. Duh!

Other Comments by Tyler Durden

133. Comment #145360 by fides_et_ratio on March 17, 2008 at 2:05 pm

134. Comment #145208 by Tyler Durden on March 17, 2008 at 11:16 am

You didn't sign off by caling me a prick this time, does that mean we're now approaching cordial terms?

Other Comments by fides_et_ratio

134. Comment #145493 by Duff on March 17, 2008 at 4:44 pm

Whoa! Alan Colmes is becoming a non- believer. We should give him some encouragement. Every thinker should be cuddled!

Other Comments by Duff

135. Comment #145573 by Trainload of Fools on March 17, 2008 at 6:05 pm

So this satellite radio requires paid subscription AND has commercials?

Also, I need some clarification. I can make money on the stockmarket no matter which way it moves, but I'm better off converting all my money to gold? Can I pay for the viagra in gold?

The hat swap genuinely intrigues me.

Other Comments by Trainload of Fools

136. Comment #145603 by Storeo on March 17, 2008 at 7:17 pm

Regarding the more educated you are would entail more probability of you not espousing a belief in a creator, I'm aware this is the case. I believe its something like 93% of Scientists belonging to the national academy of scienes share such convictions (or lack thereof). Would anyone know where i can get a citation for this statistic?

Thanks in advance,

Chris

Other Comments by Storeo

137. Comment #145622 by jwdink on March 17, 2008 at 8:06 pm

Yes. Depends on how you define God. Some definitions are ridiculous, others perfectly sensible. Christian, Judiasm etc, I think wrong. The proposition that there is a God that interferes in human affairs, depends what you mean. If god is the sum of physical laws, yep I believe in him. When you say you don't believe in God you have to do it case by case.

"Wrong" and "mildly unreasonable" are two very different things which you are trying to equivocate. There are a great deal of professors, philosophers, etc. that believe in a mild form of the Judeo-Christian God who are much smarter than you or I. Just because they're wrong doesn't mean they're stupid.

It really depends how you define "intelligence" - a typical definition is "Endowed with the capacity to reason" - Wikipedia had a detailed section on definitions: "Intelligence is an umbrella term used to describe a property of the mind that encompasses many related abilities, such as the capacities to reason, to plan, to solve problems, to think abstractly, to comprehend ideas, to use language, and to learn..." Certainly accordingly to these definitions Dawkins was correct in his statement.

This is utter nonsense. So because these people are wrong about one very difficult issue, they are poor thinkers and reasoners? How does your conclusion even follow from those definitions?

(No wonder sites like "Atheism Sucks" pop up. Atheism seems so obvious when you're only around people who espouse it intelligently and people who who deny it stupidly. But this feeling of apparent obviousness leads to some serious overstatements.)

Now, personally, I don't think Dawkins meant this comment quite like he said it, as evidenced by his talk about YECs and IDers directly afterwards. I doubt, for instance, he would say that the Bishop of Oxford was stupid or deluded. I suspect he was mostly referring to the more probably fact that 'no one believes in the God which is instantiated from a literal reading of the holy texts'. But what I think he misses is that there is a God between a) this capricious and inconsistent monstrosity and b) some form of deism or vague panpsychism, which a lot of very smart people (like Obama) believe in.

Other Comments by jwdink

138. Comment #145914 by RationalistHomeTchr on March 18, 2008 at 9:49 am

I have a humble suggestion for RD, next time he is asked whether he believes in the actual existence of Jesus, or whether he believes that Jesus was a good man: Perhaps he should bracket his opinions that Jesus probably existed, and was a good man, with words such as, before giving his opinion, "From what I've read, I think..." and, after giving his opinion, "but I haven't done a great deal of study on the historicity of Jesus."

I agree with many of the posters here that there are serious questions about the existence of Jesus, and, if he existed, whether he was a good, wise teacher.

Still, I don't particularly want RD to waste his time reading all the Jesus Seminar, etc., stuff so he can "better" answer these questions. Surely he can admit lack of interest in, and knowledge of, some topics?

Other Comments by RationalistHomeTchr

139. Comment #145919 by al-rawandi on March 18, 2008 at 9:55 am

RationalistHome,





Jesus stated in Matthew that he was sent to "reaffirm" the Old Testament. If you read the Old Testament, you get an idea of was being reaffirmed and you get the sense, that in that sense, Jesus wasn't such a good guy.

Other Comments by al-rawandi

140. Comment #145935 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on March 18, 2008 at 10:34 am

jwdink

"Wrong" and "mildly unreasonable" are two very different things which you are trying to equivocate. There are a great deal of professors, philosophers, etc. that believe in a mild form of the Judeo-Christian God who are much smarter than you or I. Just because they're wrong doesn't mean they're stupid.

Yeah its just means there wrong. I don't quite see what you're trying to get at? Are there intelligent people who believe in God? Lammie is right depends on how you define intelligence, but it is obviously the case that intelligent people believe in God.
Maybe the question you are searching for is are there good reasons to believe in God?
Is it possible but to believe in any form, even a mild form, of a Judea-Christian god specifically? I can't think of any.
All we can say is that it is faith, i.e belief without evidence.
But no-one can believe that god is a single parent who writes books and be taken seriously on the proposition. Its does not affect their intelligence, it just means they depart from rational discourse.

Other Comments by ThoughtsonCommonToad

141. Comment #145962 by jwdink on March 18, 2008 at 12:10 pm

Yeah, it just means they're wrong. I don't quite see what you're trying to get at? Are there intelligent people who believe in God? Lammie is right, it depends on how you define intelligence, but it is obviously the case that intelligent people believe in God.

But that's not what Lammie ended up saying. He said, 'when you define intelligence as ability to reason, then these people obviously aren't intelligent'. This is drivel.

All we can say is that it is faith, i.e belief without evidence.
But no-one can believe that god is a single parent who writes books and be taken seriously on the proposition. Its does not affect their intelligence, it just means they depart from rational discourse.

That's not really how a lot of religious people define faith. Granted, their redefinition is nebulous nonsense, but they're still not necessarily departing from reason. They usually believe they have excellent reasoning on their side. It's generally deism (which seems a little sensible considering fine-tuning) plus gospels (which are, by some historical measures, surprisingly reliable historical documents). It's still wrong (deism is philosophically untenable, the gospels are unreliable because even modern day accounts of miracles are unreliable) but it's not stupid. That's "what I'm trying to get at": theism isn't necessarily deluded stupidity or stupid delusions.

Other Comments by jwdink

142. Comment #146004 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on March 18, 2008 at 1:16 pm

jwdink
Believing they have excellent reasoning and having excellent reasoning are very different things.

Takes Francis Collins, one of those intelligent believers.

On a beautiful fall day, as I was hiking in the Cascade Mountains … the majesty and beauty of God's creation overwhelmed my resistance. As I rounded a corner and saw a beautiful and unexpected frozen waterfall, hundreds of feet high, I knew the search was over. The next morning, I knelt in the dewy grass as the sun rose and surrendered to Jesus Christ.

Then take the actual reasoning he uses to justify his surrender to Jesus Christ (why not Muhammed or Zeus). I'll let Sam Harris do it for me:

Collins' case for the supernatural origin of morality rests on the further assertion that there can be no evolutionary explanation for genuine altruism. Because self-sacrifice cannot increase the likelihood that an individual creature will survive and reproduce, truly self-sacrificing behavior stands as a primordial rejoinder to any biological account of morality. In Collins' view, therefore, the mere existence of altruism offers compelling evidence of a personal God. (Here, Collins performs a risible sprint past ideas in biology like "kin selection" that plausibly explain altruism and self-sacrifice in evolutionary terms.) A moment's thought reveals, however, that if we were to accept this neutered biology, almost everything about us would be bathed in the warm glow of religious mystery. Forget morality�"how did nature select for the ability to write sonnets, solder circuit boards or swing a golf club? Clearly, such abilities could never be the product of evolution. Might they have been placed in us by God? Smoking cigarettes isn't a healthy habit and is unlikely to offer an adaptive advantage�"and there were no cigarettes in the Paleolithic�"but this habit is very widespread and compelling. Is God, by any chance, a tobacco farmer? Collins can't seem to see that human morality and selfless love may be derivative of more basic biological and psychological traits, which were themselves products of evolution. It is hard to interpret this oversight in light of his scientific training. If one didn't know better, one might be tempted to conclude that religious dogmatism presents an obstacle to scientific reasoning.

Where's the sound reasoning? I really don't understand your point. Religious believers can be intelligent. OK, who would deny that? But their critical faculties are suspended when they entertain belief in God because it ultimately comes out of fear of death (not necessarily their own, more likely loved ones) and awe, not a rational basis at all.

If there is a case of good reasoning you can find, please tell me. In all my research on the matter I have found not a single case.

Other Comments by ThoughtsonCommonToad

143. Comment #146074 by Jamesthesecond on March 18, 2008 at 3:17 pm

( 130. Comment #144945 by phaseshift ) :

Crikes, a lot of you seem to think this interview was a blast, went well, etc. It doesn't give me a good feeling personally to hear
how idiotic and stubborn a few of these callers were. It's frustrating at best, scary at worst. It reinforces the impression that
many people simply will never understand how to reason, and even more - their emotional reactions scare me a bit.
If I were Richard I'd be a bit freaked out. I hope he makes it through many more years of these sorts of interviews without some freak
shooting him down or whatever.

I must say I share the same, but even stronger fear as phaseshift, the source of it being daily interactions with young people of all kinds
of cultures where I'm living ( Brussels, Belgium ). Most people I talk to have had a decent education, but their incapacity to reason in a logical way, not mistake their wishes for facts and put aside their emotions when trying to think, astonishes and scares me beyond anything.
One time a 22-year old muslim expressed his opinion that "homosexuals should be burnt because of their deeds" was the most scary
comment I heard. He was a biology student but refused to believe in biological evolution (???).

Those callers were amazing. I thought people like that were myths.

Well, believe it or not, but here in Belgium ( Brussels ) you can meet such "myths" every hour of the day...


( 125. Comment #144843 by mintcheerios ) :

I think a lot of people find it hard to believe people like this exist, especially in Europe. The bogus idea that these people are only
the fringe needs to be expelled. I get tired of moderates saying that there are only a few people like this thus people like Dawkins are
mostly attacking a straw man. They wouldn't be able to say that if they lived in Texas for 23 years (or even just 23 days).

I agree. As I said, where I live they are everywhere. And according to me, what is specifically characteristic of them is not even their willingness to accept something without evidence, their wishfull thinking, nor their striking misunderstanding of the Darwinian theory, but the arrogance that goes hand in hand with their ignorance...


I'm afraid it is time for all of us to wake up and recognize the hidden danger...

--------------------------------------------------
"Don't underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups..."

Other Comments by Jamesthesecond

144. Comment #146077 by Stephen Maxwell on March 18, 2008 at 3:26 pm

It's been a while since I've heard Richard describe the intelligent persons religiosity as a compartmentalisation of the brain.

I think it's a pretty good way to put it, and don't see why he's not using it so much any more.

Other Comments by Stephen Maxwell

145. Comment #146080 by MelM on March 18, 2008 at 3:35 pm

Just a thought. Maybe it would help, during interviews where the question comes up, if Richard would provide a web site featuring transistional fossils. Such as:
"Transitional fossils": Wikipeida http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossils

"List of transitional fossils" Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

Perhaps there are better links.

Give some of the listeners a way to follow up the interview. I would NOT assume that the entire audience is composed of wackos or even adults.

Other Comments by MelM

146. Comment #146134 by StephenH on March 18, 2008 at 4:46 pm

I enjoyed the Bulls**** moment. :)

I like the hear Richard being a bulldog sometimes

With some of these nutcases that ring up, must be hard to hold patience

Other Comments by StephenH

147. Comment #146229 by Styrer- on March 18, 2008 at 7:48 pm

95. Comment #144384 by Bonzai on March 15, 2008 at 10:27 pm

Spinoza



Again, RD did reasonably well confronting our mortality, which of course makeS the faith-based sqirm


I am not so sure. I think he came across as a bit elitist and out of touch. How many of us will write books and music for posterity? What about people who don't have a wonderful, healthy and fulfilling life to celebrate? It is often, though not always, people who feel insecure, unloved, unfulfilled and inadequate that swell the rank and file of church goers. In religion they find comfort, support and reassurance,

Richard said as a teenager he gave up religion after he found Darwin. All I can say is that this young man was destined to become a professor. Not too many people become religious because they need a scientific hypothesis! It follows that not too many people will give up religion simply because they find better answers for abstract questions in science..

If atheists want to persuade people to leave religion,--assuming this is a valid goal,-- they need to understand the psychology of the believers and offer alternatives for what they find in religion. It is simplistic,--and even in a sense patronizing,-- to attribute religion simply to childhood indoctrinations.Many believers do get something out of believing, for them religiosity is actually quite "rational" according to the economist's definition of rationality.

My impression of RD is that he is a brilliant man who knows a lot about grand ideas, but probably not enough about people, and he is also a very privileged man.

At the risk, Bonzai, that you may wish to rehearse your near-hysterical criticism of me as a 'bully' and as being 'reptilian', I think your above post shows you to be remarkably presumptuous and condescending.

You have absolutely no idea of the experiences Dawkins may have had which might similarly have made him feel during his life, in your terms, 'insecure, unloved, unfulfilled and inadequate'. You have absolutely no idea of what losses, what tragedies and what pain could have significantly detracted from your presumptuous suggestion that Dawkins has ubiquitously enjoyed 'a wonderful, healthy and fulfilling life.'

Your assertions that Dawkins is 'a bit elitest', that he is 'out of touch', that he 'knows a lot about grand ideas, but probably not enough about people' strike me as bizarre in the extreme.

Is this not the man whose whole fucking academic life has been devoted to explaining to ignorant gits like you and me the notion that we are all together, as wonderful parts in the evolutionary process that so many cannot understand? Is this not the man who has made, at least in my case, the most explosive impact in making some realise wherein lies their real humanity? Where, sir, do you find the sheer ignorance and, may I say, audacity to suggest that Dawkins knows a great deal 'but probably not enough about people'?

If atheists want to persuade people to leave religion,--assuming this is a valid goal,-- they need to understand the psychology of the believers and offer alternatives for what they find in religion.

I find this latter comment of yours to be the height of solipsistic condescension. So you, Sir Bonzai, Atheist-In-Chief, insist on instructing us little non-believers that we must find 'alternatives' to 'offer' to the poor benighted faithful? The scales blinding their eyes will only properly fall if we can offer them something better, something more comforting, with which to replace them?

As Harris made eloquently clear, it is not about offering [your words: 'alternatives for what they find in religion']. It is about taking religion, taking faith, taking supersitious supernaturalism away. It is not about replacing them. What would in this case remain would be sheer, unadulterated, wonderful, painful but real humanity.

To Steve Zara who endorsed Bonzai's post with a 'Good post': For shame, sir. You surely know better.

I think you have both misrepresented Dawkins to a discourteous and untenable degree.

Styrer

Other Comments by Styrer-

148. Comment #146233 by robotaholic on March 18, 2008 at 7:52 pm

my favorite thing Dawkins said was "how does it help to postulate an intelligent being when we're trying to EXPLAIN things like intelligent beings..." - that's a great way to phrase it!

Other Comments by robotaholic

149. Comment #146404 by Styrer- on March 19, 2008 at 3:46 am

150. Comment #146233 by robotaholic on March 18, 2008 at 7:52 pm

my favorite thing Dawkins said was "how does it help to postulate an intelligent being when we're trying to EXPLAIN things like intelligent beings..." - that's a great way to phrase it!

Agreed - it is a real joy to hear him pound this one. I don't know about you, but I enjoy it all the more because of his determination to say 'fuck off' to NOMA and insist that the question of gods is a scientific question. When it comes to religion and faith, pissed-off Dawkins is always better than laid-back, professorial Dawkins. It's what's needed!

Best,
Styrer

Other Comments by Styrer-

150. Comment #146416 by Steve Zara on March 19, 2008 at 4:21 am

Comment #146229 by Styrer

To Steve Zara who endorsed Bonzai's post with a 'Good post': For shame, sir. You surely know better.

I think you have both misrepresented Dawkins to a discourteous and untenable degree.

I was reacting to what Dawkins said in this particular interview. Just in a few statements, he did, I am afraid, come across as sounding elitist. I have no problem with that, as he is one of the elite! But, for most people, suggesting that the meaning of life could include writing books is just not going to appeal. We have to remember that the average IQ is 100. Like it or not, religion provides a framework for living, and considerable comfort, for a large section of the population of the world. The idea that we could all switch to a world of pure reason is naive, I think.

My hope is that religion is reigned in, that it can be made less fierce and less intrusive. Perhaps over decades and even centuries it can evolve towards something more philosophical and undogmatic like the less superstitious forms of Buddhism. That, I think, is a realistic hope.

Other Comments by Steve Zara