101. Comment #159590 by Radesq on April 12, 2008 at 3:16 pm

Laurence: I'm the one who said that Maher was partly Libertarian. To me a Libertarian is just a Conservative or a Liberal who abandons pragmatism for ideals. Since you claim to be one, please feel free to school me on why that description of Libertarianism is incorrect.

Other Comments by Radesq

102. Comment #159594 by drbreakfast on April 12, 2008 at 3:22 pm

I was really happy to see Prof. Dawkins on Bill Maher last night. Being here in the U.S., I believe that it is particularly important to hear voices of reason on mainstream TV.

While I frequently enjoy Maher's show and agree with many of his views and sentiments, he is somewhat wacky and unreasonable, (e.g. his "alternative medicine" rants). As some one noted above, his little segment on some cheerleaders beating up another cheerleader was dumb. And I was actually surprised (and relieved) that Jason Alexander called Maher on his inane remarks. (Bravo Jason!!).

I wonder whether Maher gave Richard the option of appearing on the panel. (Hitchens has appeared on many occasions). I'd love to hear Richard engage in a give and take on not only religion/god, but on politics and popular culture generally. I'm afraid that even if all religion and superstition magically disappeared tomorrow from the U.S., Americans would still be the homeland of irrationality. The fact that we have George W. Bush in the White House is a key example of how the U.S. is festering with the irrational and misguided.

Other Comments by drbreakfast

103. Comment #159597 by DingoDave on April 12, 2008 at 3:30 pm

I agree with Richard Dawkins, that a literal belief in the Adam and Eve myth (complete with a real live talking snake), is fundamental to the Christian view of the universe, and our place in it.

A website calling itself 'Creation On the Web.com' reviews 'The God Delusion' and quotes Richard's views on the matter.
Of course they draw different conclusions than most of us posting on this forum, but read for yourself and draw your own conclusions.

Richard wrote:

"Original sin itself comes straight from the Old Testament myth of Adam and Eve. Their sin, eating the fruit of a forbidden tree seems mild enough to merit a mere reprimand. But ... They and all their descendants were banished forever from the Garden of Eden, deprived of the gift of eternal life... " (p. 251)

"But now, the sado-masochism. God incarnated himself as a man, Jesus, in order that he should be tortured and executed in atonement for the hereditary sin of Adam. Ever since Paul expounded this repellent doctrine, Jesus has been worshipped as the redeemer of all our sins." (p. 252)

"To cap it all, Adam, the supposed perpetrator of the original sin, never existed in the first place: an awkward fact" (p. 253)

"Oh, but of course, the story of Adam and Eve was only ever symbolic, wasn't it? Symbolic? So, in order to impress himself, Jesus had himself tortured and executed, in vicarious punishment for a symbolic sin committed by a non-existent individual? As I said, barking mad, as well as viciously unpleasant." (emphasis in original; p. 253)

Now for Creation On the Web's assessment of Richard's argument:

'However, what is more pertinent here is that Dawkins reveals his understanding of the central tenets of the Christian faith. Without Adam's sin, Jesus' atoning sacrifice for sins (foreshadowed by the Abraham/Isaac incident; i.e. 'no accident') becomes meaningless. The doctrine of original sin and the atonement is, as he says, at the very 'heart of New Testament theology'; we heartily agree.'

'Later, Dawkins asks why God couldn't just forgive sins without sacrifice but he knows the biblical answer and actually refers directly to Hebrews 9:22. So Dawkins does understand Christianity much better than many ordinary Christians, but he wilfully rejects it.'
Other examples of Dawkins' criticism of compromising 'believers', who pick and choose which parts of the Bible they are comfortable with, are found on pages 157 (belief in the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection), 238 (Genesis not literal), and 247 (Scriptures symbolic or literal).
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4900

Here is another good, but more succinct summary of Richard's argument in 'The God Delusion' from another website.

"One of the funniest moments occurs when Dawkins, exasperated by the ability of liberal Christians to dismiss 'difficult' elements of the Bible as 'symbolic', and yet still to retain belief in the central Christian doctrine of atonement, blows his top; "Oh, but the story of Adam and Eve was only ever symbolic, wasn't it? Symbolic? So, in order to impress himself, Jesus had himself tortured and executed, in vicarious punishment for a symbolic sin committed by a non-existent individual? As I said, barking mad, as well as viciously unpleasant." Strong stuff, but, as is the case throughout The God Delusion, it's difficult to find fault with Dawkins' reasoning."
http://www.skinnymag.co.uk/content/view/3585/

Other Comments by DingoDave

104. Comment #159612 by cryptographix on April 12, 2008 at 4:08 pm

Wow! This was amazingly great!!! Dawkins and Maher rock. :-]

Other Comments by cryptographix

105. Comment #159614 by Laurence on April 12, 2008 at 4:13 pm

Radesq: I sometimes do hear libertarianism used in that way in mainstream media, and I'm not quite sure why. Literally, it just means supporting maximum freedom in both economic and individual matters.

The problem with the left-right divide in America is that it forces one to commit to two broad principles at the same time. The conservatives prefer a high degree of economic freedom but wants control over individual matters. They thus are often supporters of free trade, low taxes, deregulation, etc., but opposes gay marriage, abortion, legalization of drugs, etc. Liberals, on the other hand, are the total opposite in both dimensions. They prefer big government taking care of the citizens but are very open when it comes to matters of private concerns. They thus tend to support quotas and subsides to protect domestic jobs, high taxes, trade unions, minimum wage, etc., but tend to also support gay marriage, abortion, legalization of drugs, etc.

Libertarians favour both a high degree of economic freedom and a high degree of individual freedom. They thus tend to support both free trade, low taxes, deregulation, etc., and gay marriage, abortion, legalization of drugs, etc. In other words, they are liberals when it comes to private matters but are conservatives when it comes to economic matters. They are often in an awkward position whenever election comes. Because they disagree (and agree) so much with both democrats and republicans, they are almost always swing voters. However, they 'swing' for a very different reason than the so-called centrists. Libertarians 'swing' because neither the democrats nor the republicans offer platforms that they largely agree with, while centrists 'swing' because they haven't thought about or made up their minds on most issues.

Of course, I'm speaking very broadly here. Obviously not every liberal/conservative/libertarian subscribes to the views I described above exactly, but hopefully you get the idea. :)

Other Comments by Laurence

106. Comment #159621 by Julius Morche on April 12, 2008 at 4:31 pm

101. Comment #159573 by Noodly

Having been brought up as a cultural Catholic I can't see any value in religious traditions whatsoever. After all, they only exist to reinforce the belief systems espoused by the religion in the first place.

I think the attitude you display here is - if you permit - exactly the kind of problematic ignorance that so worries me. I was raised a Catholic myself and, while I reject the notion that a man once came back alive after having been brutally tortured and killed by nailing to a piece of wood, I don't allow my atheism to thwart my sense of the historical.

Your comments are particularly disappointing for someone who was raised a Catholic. To me, a Catholic mass is a splendid synthesis of many branches of the arts, including architecture, drama, music, and literature. Anyone who has witnessed a Catholic rite in a building like St. Peter in Rome must be convinced of this [Yes I know, there are a lot of bad services in ugly church buildings - I don't go there, as I am a cultural Catholic, not a Christian believer]. The Catholic rite, with its Latin prayers, its robes, its historically grown order, is one of the few elements of (late) Ancient Roman culture that we still posses today IN LIVING FORM. To sum this up, the Catholic Church as an institution is as exciting for historians as the discovery of a living prehistoric animal would be for zoologists.

One absolutely doesn't need to adhere to a belief in the supernatural in order to appreciate these extraordinary cultural traditions. To claim, however, as you do, that they aren't worth bothering about is beyond a reasonable appreciation of reality. Religions are secondary cultures, hence ALL the traditions they purport are usually "incorporated". No religion has invented music, yet there is a lot of awe-striking religious music. Christianity hasn't invented architecture, yet there are the cathedrals. Most of the religious rituals can be studied anthropologically and even the outdated religious BELIEF SYSTEMS often are acculturations of prior religious traditions. Your challenge

name one purely religious tradition that isn't stupid

cannot be met simply because a "purely religious tradition" does not exist. And the traditions that I just mentioned to you surely are not "stupid". Instead, they are both historically interesting and culturally enriching.

Yes, "Atheism" is the only intellectually honest mentality that human beings in the 21st century can adhere to. But your atheism should never stand in the way of your appreciation of cultural traditions. That is why I find what Mr Maher has to say about religion extremely childish and short-sighted, in contrast to the more sophisticated approaches of people like Richard Dawkins, Gerd Luedemann, Sam Harris and many others.

Other Comments by Julius Morche

107. Comment #159622 by RationalistHomeTchr on April 12, 2008 at 4:33 pm

In regards to Francis Collins' writing about dealing with his daughter's rape:

I find it such a relief not to have to try to figure out a deeper good from, or silver lining in, the bad things that happen. It's a relief not to have to try to come to terms with bad things somehow being part of a divine plan. It's freeing not to worry about "fairness" being part of the universe and to never have to even think the word "entitled."

I certainly sympathize with Collins' attempts to deal with the almost-unendurable, but I am very glad not to have to heavily compartmentalize and rationalize in order to think the way he does.

Other Comments by RationalistHomeTchr

108. Comment #159629 by Gaffer on April 12, 2008 at 4:44 pm

I don't get the whole 'who invented the phrase "imaginary friend"?' banter at the start. How can anyone claim to have invented that? And why?

Other Comments by Gaffer

109. Comment #159638 by Teratornis on April 12, 2008 at 5:13 pm

Comment #159502 by PLAYBALL:

Richard you were fantastic. I think we caught a glimpse of your playful side.

Does Richard have another side? He always seems to enjoy himself in public appearances.

Other Comments by Teratornis

110. Comment #159643 by IPV4 on April 12, 2008 at 5:19 pm

Your comments are particularly disappointing for someone who was raised a Catholic. To me, a Catholic mass is a splendid synthesis of many branches of the arts, including architecture, drama, music, and literature. Anyone who has witnessed a Catholic rite in a building like St. Peter in Rome must be convinced of this [Yes I know, there are a lot of bad services in ugly church buildings - I don't go there, as I am a cultural Catholic, not a Christian believer]. The Catholic rite, with its Latin prayers, its robes, its historically grown order, is one of the few elements of (late) Ancient Roman culture that we still posses today IN LIVING FORM. To sum this up, the Catholic Church as an institution is as exciting for historians as the discovery of a living prehistoric animal would be for zoologists

You must be kidding me? You are are trolling my friend and are not an atheist. Yes you can respect the architecture , the art and so forth but if you are activley participating in your church traditions as a catholic then you are just feeding the fire and are no better then the actual believers which you probably are.

Other Comments by IPV4

111. Comment #159648 by Diacanu on April 12, 2008 at 5:29 pm

Julius Morche-

To me, a Catholic mass is a splendid synthesis of many branches of the arts, including architecture, drama, music, and literature.

Well, then you're welcome to it.

To me, the most mundane television program, or the most pedrestianly written comic book interest me more than the drab medieval drone-fest that is a Catholic mass.

Tradition doesn't automatically equal good.
And tradition for its own sake, as its own entity is stagnation to me.

We've evolved, and have taken it for granted.
Shit, give me a stack of Kubric films over the fucking Bible.
Or, Lord Of The Rings.
Fuck, Nightmare On Elm Street Part 3 inspires me more than religion.

Other Comments by Diacanu

112. Comment #159652 by Teratornis on April 12, 2008 at 5:36 pm

Comment #159629 by Gaffer:

I don't get the whole 'who invented the phrase "imaginary friend"?' banter at the start. How can anyone claim to have invented that? And why?

When Richard used the phrase, Maher recognized it as a phrase he had used in his standup routine, as he said. Basically that was two guys talking shop.

The phrase itself seems to go back far beyond its use by atheists to mock beliefs in gods:

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

People have spoken of children having imaginary friends for a long time. Generations, probably. Using the phrase as a pejorative label for religious belief seems to be more recent. I have no idea who coined it, but I believe I saw it in routine use on Usenet discussion groups long before The God Delusion. I don't know if that use predates Maher.

And by the way, I salute Richard's use of a satellite link to make this appearance. Jetting around the world wastes tremendous amounts of petroleum, which is now selling for record high prices, resulting in record high fortunes pouring into the coffers of Islamic theocracies such as Saudi Arabia, from whence billions flow into promoting the very beliefs we claim to oppose.

Anyone who has anything important to say can say it perfectly well from one city, thanks to modern telecommunications technology. We must begin to view transportation, including long-distance air travel, in something like the way we view abortion: both should be safe and legal, but rare.

Other Comments by Teratornis

113. Comment #159654 by Diacanu on April 12, 2008 at 5:41 pm

clearmind-

You already posted that trash in another thread.

I'm flagging your ass.

Other Comments by Diacanu

114. Comment #159656 by Dr Benway on April 12, 2008 at 5:58 pm

Ugh. Me sicka wooter.

Julius Morche, you missed the word "if." Dawkins said, "If that's what Collins believes then..."

To me, a Catholic mass is a splendid synthesis of many branches of the arts, including architecture, drama, music, and literature.

Some years ago I went through a lonely phase after moving to a new town. So I decided to go to mass. Hadn't been in forever.

Not fifteen minutes into the service, I was miserable. It all came back to me, the feeling of being a restless kid looking out the window at a beautiful day. Oh, the agony. I used to read some of the better old testament stories in the monthly missalette again and again, just to stop myself from screaming (most the NT readings were too dull).

One man's drink is another's poison.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

115. Comment #159658 by Julius Morche on April 12, 2008 at 6:18 pm

116. Comment #159656 by Dr Benway

Julius Morche, you missed the word "if." Dawkins said, "If that's what Collins believes then..."

Thanks, but his words are actually "He does? In that case he goes right down in my estimation: he's not a bright guy"

Now, English is not my first language, but this is pretty plain isn't it? In my understanding, "in that case" is not the same as "if", but rather a phrase signalling acceptance of what was said before.

Other Comments by Julius Morche

116. Comment #159659 by Radesq on April 12, 2008 at 6:18 pm

Laurence -- thanks for the explanation of Libertarianism. If I understand you correctly Libertarians are swingers who often find themselves in awkward positions. Just kidding...I think your view of centrists is mistaken however. Whereas your Libertarians compromise by moving toward the middle of the political spectrum -- centrists compromise by moving toward the fringe because there are no moderate non-partisan candidates in US politics. What you are describing as centrists are the mis/uninformed (clearly the largest voting block).

Other Comments by Radesq

117. Comment #159660 by Diacanu on April 12, 2008 at 6:28 pm

I like the "get the government off my back", part of libertarianism, but I hate the blind faith in corporations.

I don't trust corporations any more than I do the government.

Both are out to scarf up all the money, and both want to control your mind.

Other Comments by Diacanu

118. Comment #159661 by Frankus1122 on April 12, 2008 at 6:33 pm

From Dr. Benway:

Not fifteen minutes into the service, I was miserable. It all came back to me, the feeling of being a restless kid looking out the window at a beautiful day. Oh, the agony.

As I young child I hated the mass just as you did. I was not very well behaved.
The only way I could stand it as a young teenager was because of the cute girls. I spent my time thinking about things that would extend the length of my next confession.
Which was another thing I absolutely hated. I wonder now if the man behind the screen got off on the stories of me getting off.

Other Comments by Frankus1122

119. Comment #159667 by Dr Benway on April 12, 2008 at 6:49 pm

Julius Morche, you forced me to re-listen to the clip. You're right; Dawkins says with comedic astonishment, "He does?!" Then he follows with, "In that case ..." as you said. You good; me bad.

You see, my brain felt the conditional in there, and so I remembered "if that's the case" instead of "in that case." I hallucinated the "if."

Still, I believe the conditional, although unspoken, is understood.

People are naturally a little less precise about the opinions of third parties who aren't present. That's why Dawkins was saying, "maybe he believes this; maybe that." And that's why Maher's "absolutely" was a joke. The whole dialog is a familar television snowclone:

Person A: It can't be X.
Person B: Trust me, it's X.
Person A: It is? *eyes bug out* Then I jolly well... blah blah BLAH!!

Dawkins is not taking Bill Maher's word for what Collins believes.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

120. Comment #159668 by Laurence on April 12, 2008 at 6:50 pm

Radesq: You're right, perhaps I was too harsh on the centrists and too quick to lump them together with the uninformed. Interestingly though, in practice these two groups often do get lumped together, in the following sense: if we administer a questionnaire in which the taker can answer agree/disagree/maybe to various economic and individual issues, one will most likely get similar answers from the centrists, who actually thought about the issues and genuinely want to take a middle-ground position, and the uninformed, who are, well, uninformed. Yet, both of them will be given the 'centrist' label, when in fact probably most of them belong to the uninformed camp!

Other Comments by Laurence

121. Comment #159671 by Teratornis on April 12, 2008 at 6:53 pm

Comment #159621 by Julius Morche:

I think the attitude you display here is - if you permit - exactly the kind of problematic ignorance that so worries me.

I'm curious to know where you rank this particular worry on your personal hierarchy of worries. For example, would you rank this worry about the preservation of religious tradition above or below each of the following worries:

1. The rise of Islamic fundamentalism

2. The rise of the Christian right in the U.S.

3. Peak oil and its immediate consequence, the worsening global food crisis, which is unfolding before us right now, along with the potential worst-case scenario, the collapse of industrial civilization, which might occur in just 10 to 20 years

4. Global warming, which in the worst case might render Earth uninhabitable by humans, perhaps in 30 to 100 years (this assumes civilization gets through peak oil and manages to keep burning through the remaining fossil fuels at the projected rates)

I was raised a Catholic myself and, while I reject the notion that a man once came back alive after having been brutally tortured and killed by nailing to a piece of wood, I don't allow my atheism to thwart my sense of the historical.

If you had been raised by football fans, and then if you lost your interest in football, how much would you care about preserving football, and why?

Do you see religion as more important than any other form of entertainment, and if so, why?

Religions routinely go extinct just like many other cultural constructs go extinct.

I've heard of a few people getting exercised over languages going extinct. I have a really hard time understanding the problem. Linguistic diversity, as far as I can tell, has an extremely poor ratio of benefits to costs. The amount of cost and complexity for humans to deal with so many languages seems to far outweigh any hypothetical benefits from having so many languages. As far as I can tell, if the whole world spoke one language, any language, the world would be a better place than it is now. As far as I can tell, any language is about as good as any other. Although it does appear that languages with reasonably compact alphabets work better on computers, which is getting to be increasingly important. But the Chinese seem to be computerizing somehow.

Your comments are particularly disappointing for someone who was raised a Catholic. To me, a Catholic mass is a splendid synthesis of many branches of the arts, including architecture, drama, music, and literature. Anyone who has witnessed a Catholic rite in a building like St. Peter in Rome must be convinced of this [Yes I know, there are a lot of bad services in ugly church buildings - I don't go there, as I am a cultural Catholic, not a Christian believer]. The Catholic rite, with its Latin prayers, its robes, its historically grown order, is one of the few elements of (late) Ancient Roman culture that we still posses today IN LIVING FORM. To sum this up, the Catholic Church as an institution is as exciting for historians as the discovery of a living prehistoric animal would be for zoologists.

I'm very glad that some monks and scribes preserved the writings of the ancient Greek philosophers through the Dark Ages, because the rediscovery of these works led to modern civiliization. What Aristotle et al. wrote about critical thinking and so on is still valuable today. If everyone had learned those lessons well enough to have eliminated fallacies from our discourse, we'd probably all experience an across-the-board jump in real income.

But what ancient religious tradition has any practical value? Which of our pressing problems can we attack any more efficiently by studying religious entertainments?

Historians can get excited about whatever they like. You may notice there aren't a lot of historians. That's because the vast majority of people get excited about different things. You seem to be asserting that the subjective tastes of one group of people are more important than the subjective tastes of another group.

Suppose someone is a football fan and you don't care for football. If you ridiculed the behavior of football hooligans and suggested the whole business of football was a waste of resources, would you then agree if the football fan were to declare that everyone should share his fixation with that grand sporting tradition?

Most likely not. Just because the football fan loves football doesn't make football any more valuable to you. Either people like football or they don't. There's nothing beyond that to argue.

One absolutely doesn't need to adhere to a belief in the supernatural in order to appreciate these extraordinary cultural traditions.

One does, however, have to adhere to a bit of irrationality to imagine that everyone should share one particular taste in entertainment.

Some people are even more passionate about football than you are about the trappings of your childhood religion. Insult their favorite team in a pub at your peril.

This type of irrational loyalty to inherently meaningless ritual and the insistance that everyone should respect it is itself an affront to rationality.

If people want to carry on the football tradition that's their business. Just don't ask me to contribute, or respect it, unless I happen to decide I like it.

Here in the U.S., where we have a brand of football that is very different but equally mindless, (American) football fans are stupid enough to vote in tax subsidies for football stadiums. Thereby further enriching the billionaire owners and millionaire players. I can't imagine how anyone with a shred of self-respect can vote for such groveling subservience. That's a slave mentality to be sure.

To claim, however, as you do, that they aren't worth bothering about is beyond a reasonable appreciation of reality.

A reasonable appreciation of reality leads us to conclude that religions are a form of entertainment. Entertainments come and go. A few eccentrics might try to carry on classical entertainment traditions that the vast majority of people care nothing about, and I don't see a problem if that's what they want to pursue. But to say everyone should share one particular subjective taste in entertainment - mine - borders on pomposity.

I think everyone who is physically able should ride bicycles. I think cycling is really important. I can give lots of reasons, but in the end, some people probably won't be interested. I can't imagine how not, but there it is.

Religions are secondary cultures, hence ALL the traditions they purport are usually "incorporated". No religion has invented music, yet there is a lot of awe-striking religious music.

Speaking of striking awe, how about the diversity of subjective tastes in music? The range of opinions people can have about a given work is, to me, far more awe-inspiring than the work itself.

I can't imagine how most songs make it onto the radio, but apparently lots of people like them. There is simply no accounting for taste.

Someday, science may be able to explain exactly why you like the things you like, and dislike the things you dislike. Won't that be great? When science can do that, we'll finally be getting somewhere.

Christianity hasn't invented architecture, yet there are the cathedrals.

Yes, it's amazing how a completely stupid waste of resources can begin to seem worthwhile if it simply reaches a grand enough scale.

I'm actually impressed how that works. If you or I were to individually waste all our money, on say gambling, or piling up as many bricks in our backyards as we could, few people would find our profligacy impressive.

But if we banded together with thousands of other people to waste some awesomely impressive amount of resources to no purpose, then our collective stupidity could lead to something historically significant.

The cathedrals are less objectively impressive than the Egyptian pyramids, which were earlier and even more stupidly expensive attempts at immortality through piling up rocks. Do you equally support the maintenance of ancient Egyptian tradition?

A fair number of eccentrics do take an interest in Egyptology, but I haven't heard many Egyptologists insisting that we should all share their interest. Maybe some do, I suppose.

Most of the religious rituals can be studied anthropologically

Sure, and almost always this will be at taxpayer expense, because the result is unlikely to lead to any product which sells.

Anthropologists don't work cheaply. They have to get funded and paid. The private sector doesn't tend to support anthropological studies of religion because these studies add nothing which markets can find a way to value.

I'm all for public funding for science, even areas of science where nobody imagines there will ever be a payoff, because one never knows where the next worthwhile discovery might come from. But the obviously useless investigations tend to remain very much minor niche activities pursued largely by harmless eccentrics, and most of them have enough objective awareness to admit the larger society doesn't take much interest in what they do.

Other Comments by Teratornis

122. Comment #159674 by Diacanu on April 12, 2008 at 7:07 pm

Teratornis-

Ah, there you go again scaremongering about peak oil.


I keep telling you, it's no problem, my neutrino-trapping arrays are ready to roll.

Other Comments by Diacanu

123. Comment #159676 by Radesq on April 12, 2008 at 7:16 pm

Teratornis wasn't oil discovered in Western PA? At $175.00 per barrel maybe you can set up a derrick to find some black gold there in OH.

Other Comments by Radesq

124. Comment #159680 by Enlightenme.. on April 12, 2008 at 7:51 pm

On the subject of IQ & stupidity, I say Forrest Gump's mom had it about right - stupid is as stupid does. (Can be a verb independent of intelligence)
In the case of Collins it's clear he has to be pretty clever, and I suspect he is in the class of people who think it necessary - perhaps for the 'good of the species' - that there is absolute moral law. The arrogance that believes your fellow man cannot be trusted probably comes from the same place that makes a majority of us feel we are 'above the average'.

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

125. Comment #159681 by Paine on April 12, 2008 at 7:51 pm

I think we should stop giving Francis Collins such a hard time for all the bullshit he believes. Look at him as a tactical ploy in the larger battle. The fact that he believes in evolution AND is a bona fide faith-head can be used to great advantage.

I read a review of a talk he gave to some hardcore faith-based nut jobs. At the end of it many of them were sincerely open to accepting evolution, coming from him, as it were.
You'll have to accept that no matter how articulate and reasonable Prof. Dawkins is, he would never have gotten the same reaction from that audience.
Dawkins is the big picture, but the Francis Collins of this world have their use too.

Other Comments by Paine

126. Comment #159682 by Enlightenme.. on April 12, 2008 at 8:00 pm

^ Professes to believe.
There's always that possibility.

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

127. Comment #159684 by lievemebe on April 12, 2008 at 8:21 pm

Hypothetically, there is a probability of 0.000000000001 that there is a god. Belief in god is similar to belief in that particular probability with neither evidence nor a credible method of estimation.

Paine,
Why does Francis Collins believe in bullshit in the first place? Surely it is better to explain evolution to creationists from a rational position, thereby re-inforcing the power of reason.

Other Comments by lievemebe

128. Comment #159685 by MaxD on April 12, 2008 at 8:33 pm

Teratornis, do you have to do this all the time. Maybe you ought to write a book, or start a peak oil thread in the forums?

I mean science bless you for your pluckyness but do you have to write a book everytime you get up on your favorite soap box?

Other Comments by MaxD

129. Comment #159688 by FightingFalcon on April 12, 2008 at 9:08 pm

Diacanu,

I like the "get the government off my back", part of libertarianism, but I hate the blind faith in corporations.

I don't trust corporations any more than I do the government.

Both are out to scarf up all the money, and both want to control your mind.

We don't have blind faith in corporations. We believe that human beings have the fundamental right to keep whatever money that they make through honest and legal dealings. I have no particular love for Exxon but I recognize the fact that they have the right to keep their profits. They have no responsibility toward anyone or anything other than to make money. That's why they exist - for no other reason do they operate. Corporations exist solely to provide a product that the general population wants. Should a company provide that product in an unsatisfactory manner or the product is no longer required, the customer moves on.

The Austrian School of Economics makes so much sense to me that I find it hard to believe that there are actually people out there who continue to advocate government intervention in the market place.

Other Comments by FightingFalcon

130. Comment #159689 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 12, 2008 at 9:18 pm

We don't have blind faith in corporations. We believe that human beings have the fundamental right to keep whatever money that they make through honest and legal dealings. I have no particular love for Exxon but I recognize the fact that they have the right to keep their profits. They have no responsibility toward anyone or anything other than to make money. That's why they exist - for no other reason do they operate. Corporations exist solely to provide a product that the general population wants. Should a company provide that product in an unsatisfactory manner or the product is no longer required, the customer moves on.

The freedom fallacy of unrestrained capitalism. Please you actually believe this?

Other Comments by ThoughtsonCommonToad

131. Comment #159691 by Satanburiedfossils on April 12, 2008 at 9:26 pm

"Believing in a talking donkey kept me out of prison."
--John Q. Christian

Talking snake? Hey, what about that talking donkey in Numbers (KJV bible)?

(Well, technically, it's a talking ass, but whenever I think of talking asses I'm reminded of Creationists.)

Numbers 22:23 And the ass saw the angel of the LORD standing in the way, and his sword drawn in his hand: and the ass turned aside out of the way, and went into the field: and Balaam smote the ass, to turn her into the way.

(The donkey sees "the angel of the Lord", but Balaam can't. Call me crazy, but wouldn't an angel of the Lord's time better be spent saving drowning victims or knocking pedestrians out of the way of speeding horses?)

Numbers 22:24-27 But the angel of the LORD stood in a path of the vineyards, a wall being on this side, and a wall on that side. And when the ass saw the angel of the LORD, she thrust herself unto the wall, and crushed Balaam's foot against the wall: and he smote her again. And the angel of the LORD went further, and stood in a narrow place, where was no way to turn either to the right hand or to the left. And when the ass saw the angel of the LORD, she fell down under Balaam: and Balaam's anger was kindled, and he smote the ass with a staff.

(Balaam's donkey begins acting strangely so he strikes her repeatedly with his staff. Fortunately for Balaam, the SPCA had not yet been founded so there was little risk he would be hauled into court on charges of animal abuse.)

Numbers 22:28-30 And the LORD opened the mouth of the ass, and she said unto Balaam, What have I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times? And Balaam said unto the ass, Because thou hast mocked me: I would there were a sword in mine hand, for now would I kill thee. And the ass said unto Balaam, Am not I thine ass, upon which thou hast ridden ever since I was thine unto this day? was I ever wont to do so unto thee? And he said, Nay.

(Balaam is not the least bit astonished when his donkey begins talking to him. Perhaps he figured that if you hit a donkey enough times with a wooden stick it will master human speech in no time flat. Now if you or I suddenly realized we had a talking donkey on our hands, we'd be envisioning how we could make a fortune doing the rounds on the show circuit. This thought never seems to have occurred to Balaam, however, who wastes what should be a golden opportunity to do little more than chastise the donkey.)

Numbers 22:31-34 Then the LORD opened the eyes of Balaam, and he saw the angel of the LORD standing in the way, and his sword drawn in his hand: and he bowed down his head, and fell flat on his face. And the angel of the LORD said unto him, Wherefore hast thou smitten thine ass these three times? behold, I went out to withstand thee, because thy way is perverse before me: And the ass saw me, and turned from me these three times: unless she had turned from me, surely now also I had slain thee, and saved her alive. And Balaam said unto the angel of the LORD, I have sinned; for I knew not that thou stoodest in the way against me: now therefore, if it displease thee, I will get me back again.

(God's Allen Funt moment: "Look Balaam, it was me, God, this whole time blocking your donkey with an invisible angel and putting words in his mouth.")

I can't for the life of me figure out what sort of moral lesson we're supposed to take from this story. Maybe it's "don't lose your temper and strike animals that are acting freaky because there could be an invisible angel standing nearby."

Odd, too, that Balaam has committed a "sin" for something that he was in no way responsible. Well, at least he got off easier than Aaron's sons (Leviticus 10:1-2) and Uzza (1 Chronicles 13:7-10).

Other Comments by Satanburiedfossils

132. Comment #159692 by Paine on April 12, 2008 at 9:34 pm

lievemebe

Surely it is better to explain evolution to creationists from a rational position, thereby re-inforcing the power of reason.

Hehe. What makes you think creationists are willing to listen to rational arguments? The idea is a contradiction.

Other Comments by Paine

133. Comment #159696 by lievemebe on April 12, 2008 at 9:47 pm

Paine
My apologies. I don't know what came over me. Perhaps I was thinking of the way rationalists converse amongst themselves rather than with a brick wall. A positive thing is that many religious people have elevated themselves to reason, maybe some diehard creationists can as well.

Other Comments by lievemebe

134. Comment #159697 by Styrer- on April 12, 2008 at 9:59 pm

Comment #159696 by lievemebe on April 12, 2008 at

9:47 pm

Paine
My apologies. I don't know what came over me. Perhaps I was thinking of the way rationalists converse amongst themselves rather than with a brick wall. A positive thing is that many religious people have elevated themselves to reason, maybe some diehard creationists can as well.

Don't you be going apologising to any fucker, yer hear?

You, my friend, are well on the money. Get your balls out (it's a metaphor, all women ready to object) and keep kicking.

There'll be enough time for you to not say anything, or to kick anything, when you're dead.

Best,
Styrer

Other Comments by Styrer-

135. Comment #159698 by Paine on April 12, 2008 at 10:07 pm

Lieve, there is hope. Shermer used to be a creationist after all.
Besides, brick walls cant be argued with, they just have to be dismantled, one block at a time.

Other Comments by Paine

136. Comment #159699 by lievemebe on April 12, 2008 at 10:11 pm

styrer
Thank you for your encouragement. However I have this awful vision of getting my balls out and kicking them around a field full of creationists and dying as a result. I know you mean me no harm - just my imagination running as rampant as the faith-heads.

Other Comments by lievemebe

137. Comment #159701 by Styrer- on April 12, 2008 at 10:17 pm

Comment #159699 by lievemebe on April 12, 2008 at 10:11 pm

You have a strong argument; continue to develop it.

If you're imagining creationist testicle-throwing as a result of my comment, then do know that your anti-faith speech can be painful too. Not for us, but for its recipient listeners.

What have they to lose but their solipsistic, vicious, subservient, mendacious, inhuman creed after all?

And quite fucking right.

Best,
Styrer

Other Comments by Styrer-

138. Comment #159704 by Radesq on April 12, 2008 at 10:41 pm

131. Comment #159688 by FightingFalcon

The Austrian School of Economics makes so much sense to me that I find it hard to believe that there are actually people out there who continue to advocate government intervention in the market place.

I find it hard to believe that anyone who has played the board game Monopoly can think that government intervention isn't absolutely necessary for a stable market place. As for ExxonMobil, it is the biggest player in today's Oiligopoly -- they might as well change their name to Standard Oil. But until the government breaks them up or Teratornis gets a sidecar for his bicycle that he can cart me around in...I guess I'll have to put up with the invisible hand of the market lifting all the money out of my wallet every time I roll into the filling station.

Other Comments by Radesq

139. Comment #159706 by lievemebe on April 12, 2008 at 10:47 pm

Comment #159701 by Styrer
I would develop this further but it is my birthday and I am away to celebrate in earnest. Perhaps some other time.
signing off
lievemebe

Other Comments by lievemebe

140. Comment #159707 by rushfan2112 on April 12, 2008 at 10:56 pm

"A copy of "The God Delusion" beside every hotel bed in America"



Yes, Yes, and YES!!!! What a great signoff

Other Comments by rushfan2112

141. Comment #159708 by Galactic Lord Xenu on April 12, 2008 at 11:03 pm

So why are you buying gasoline?

You still have a net benefit in the end...? In that case, both of you are benefiting.

Or are you not having a net benefit..? In which case... why are you buying gasoline?

It's true that they may raise prices to what you are not currently comfortable with, or they may have a strong grip on that sector. We all get upset when prices rise, but that's life and people trying to make money (unless you're opposed to that, which is rather trendy these days).

It's also true they have a strong grip, but they cannot maintain that monopoly if someone else is offering a better price or service, whether it be cheaper gasoline or an alternative fuel altogether.

The market is, in its purest sense, the will of the masses, as it's the masses that choose to keep these companies in business; they can either not by the product, out of not feeling it provides them a good deal or not approving the business' practices, or they can buy it if it is more necessary to them than the money.

You speak of the "invisible hand" taking the money out of your wallet, but I see you placing your money directly in the hands of the gas companies--they're not taking it, how can they, if you are offering it because you need something hey are offering?

You're giving up your money at "high" gas prices, you're handing it right over, they aren't taking it, buddy. You obviously want legislation to come in and make sure you get gas at prices *you* want, and you want a clear conscious, a way to justify your own form of greed. You're part of the problem--you're ponying up the money at that price, you're supplying the demand needed to keep prices at that level. Oh, but being part of the solution--to find alternatives, to conserve gas, to not help create the demand--that's too difficult, or perhaps you don't benefit enough out of doing that. If you want to know who the culprit really is behind high gas prices, look in the mirror--you're the consumer enabling them to keep prices high.

Obviously, you want, and need, a government to come in and make them offer what they have at a price you are more comfortable with, because as a normal person, you want things as cheap as possible with little regards to the possible negative consequences, you are jealous and angry that, despite how much you've benefited from making money in this system, that others have been allowed to end up with far more than you have; it is envy by comparison, no matter how much you have benefited, you see that others have benefited more and thus you react emotionally feeling that something is wrong. Classical psychological experiments have demonstrated this phenomenon again and again.

If we had a "system" where things were far worse, but everyone were equal, I have a feeling your complaints would be elsewhere. Like, perhaps, trying to fill your stomach. But at least it'd be "fair" and the money wouldn't be "squeezed out of your wallet", right?

It's interesting, because if gas prices were normally higher than this, and suddenly they fell to current levels, you'd be glad that they were *so low*. This reminds me of psychology experiments where rats, upon completion of a maze, would be rewarded a large amount of pellets. Further trials they would receive much less pellets than expected. What happens? Observable frustration, or otherwise a reaction to getting less then expected. The furor over whenever prices are raised higher than what you've come to expect or want is just another manifestation of this phenomenon in humans. The thing is, there is no *right* price for gas, no objective standards by which things should cost or otherwise judging the merits of exchange. There is merely what people are willing to pay for the product--what it is worth to you, and to others.

Also, I found you comparing the free market to a board game rather amusing; I didn't realize you got your views from tabletop games, it's a rather interesting perspective to say the least...

Other Comments by Galactic Lord Xenu

142. Comment #159711 by Radesq on April 12, 2008 at 11:48 pm

GLX I buy gasoline so that I can drive to work. (don't you dare give me a bunch of BS suggestions on how I should solve that dilemma) There is not enough competition in the gasoline production industry and that is a problem. It leads to collusion and artificial supply line problems to inflate prices. I don't want government price fixing I want oversight. I want the oligopoly broken up to increase competition (the barriers to entry in that business are too high). I want the government to require additional refining capacity to be built so there isn't a supply/demand problem with every change of the seasons or when there is a fire or flood at one facility. The market is not the masses speaking if it was the price of gas would not have dropped dramatically prior to Bush's last reelection bid.

And Monopoly is the only unfettered capitalism you are likely to find in a western country so giggle all you want.

Other Comments by Radesq

143. Comment #159714 by TIKI AL on April 13, 2008 at 12:16 am

I thought Richard did a great job and added some much needed class to the program without appearing supercillious.

Bill's "don't bend over in the rectory" rant on the Pope was priceless.

Other Comments by TIKI AL

144. Comment #159718 by Thanny on April 13, 2008 at 1:00 am

OK, several points.

1) Real Time does not use laugh tracks. Only second-rate sitcoms use them. Professor Dawkins' reply is sufficient explanation for why you heard laughing with the time delay (and it's also possible we heard the normal audience while it was played for them).

2) Bill Maher lives in California. Perhaps it's only something only native-born Americans would understand, but Californians have their own stereotype, that of being flaky. Like all stereotypes, there's some truth behind it, and Maher has his share of West-coast flakiness. If you really want to retch, watch the episode where had the founder of PETA on. She actually said that nitrogen was a greenhouse gas, in a nonsensical tirade where she tried to claim that non-vegetarians couldn't be environmentalists.

3) ALL people are imperfect. Some of you seem like the kind of prat who would break off an engagement because the fiance put the toilet paper on the roll backwards. Honestly, learn how to deal with real people. You're not going to find anyone who shares your point of view exactly.

4) If you think Maher isn't funny, you have no sense of humor. I know you think you do - everyone thinks they have a sense of humor - but sorry, you don't.

Other Comments by Thanny

145. Comment #159721 by Tumara Baap on April 13, 2008 at 1:13 am

Hats off to Dr. Dawkins. There are lots of scientists and lots of atheists out there. But few can pull off what Dawkins does.. Shows such as Colbert Report and Real Time need one to be above all funny, witty, and lighthearted. Access to the New York Times requires one to engage an intelligent though not necessarily a scientifically savvy crowd. I remember a thread critical of Dr.Dawkin's that went on for days ... it concerned a clever and evocative example (in the Times) that pointed to a pathway from wolf to chihahua(?) as being flawed since it wasn't natural evolution in the wild. Carl Sagan faced the same shit... where people wouldn't pass an opportunity to flaunt their "scientific rigor" over a celebrity scientist. But it is precisely the ability to adapt one's dance to changing rhythm in the media world that makes Dawkins an invaluable spokesman.
I was thrilled to see Dawkins mention this site on the show. TGD got excellent attention showered upon it. All in all, a wonderful day for atheism and rationality.

Other Comments by Tumara Baap

146. Comment #159725 by Thanny on April 13, 2008 at 1:37 am

Oh, and one other thing.

Maher was *JOKING* when he said he interviewed Collins, and confirmed that the latter believed in the talking snake. It certainly seemed to me that Richard was also joking with his response.

Not that my estimate of Collins' intelligence is at all high, after reading bits from his book (I couldn't possibly stomach reading the whole thing).

Other Comments by Thanny

147. Comment #159733 by Peacebeuponme on April 13, 2008 at 2:32 am

FightingFalcon

We believe that human beings have the fundamental right to keep whatever money that they make through honest and legal dealings.

The Austrian School of Economics makes so much sense to me that I find it hard to believe that there are actually people out there who continue to advocate government intervention in the market place.

Well "honest and legal dealings" should mean no cartels and no monopolies. You need government intervention to protect that.

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

148. Comment #159742 by Julius Morche on April 13, 2008 at 2:55 am

123. Comment #159671 by Teratornis

I'm curious to know where you rank this particular worry on your personal hierarchy of worries. For example, would you rank this worry about the preservation of religious tradition above or below each of the following worries:

1. The rise of Islamic fundamentalism

2. The rise of the Christian right in the U.S.

3. Peak oil and its immediate consequence, the worsening global food crisis, which is unfolding before us right now, along with the potential worst-case scenario, the collapse of industrial civilization, which might occur in just 10 to 20 years

4. Global warming, which in the worst case might render Earth uninhabitable by humans, perhaps in 30 to 100 years (this assumes civilization gets through peak oil and manages to keep burning through the remaining fossil fuels at the projected rates)

Don't be silly. Apart from the second point, which I haven't studied and therefore can't tell how seriously a problem it actually is, all of those are crucial issues and most likely more pressing than anything cultural. That said, cultural issues are also important, and many of the problems you mentioned are linked to things cultural and cultural research can contribute to their solution. One of the most deplorable actions of the Islamist Taliban regime was the demolishing of the Buddhas of Bamyan. Needless to say, this loss ranks behind the loss of human life caused by these thugs, but do I really have to organise a minute of silence for the children of Africa or donate 100 Euros to Mr Gore's campaign before I'm allowed to get pissed-off because someone just broke into my apartment? Your arguments sound dangerously like the conversation between two student girls I once witnessed in Paris. One of them, apparently an intern at UNESCO, was confronted by her interlocutor with this mind-bogging nonsense: "Surely the UNESCO is an incredible waste of resources. How much good could be done with all that money?"
I hope you would wish to distance yourself from such stupidity.

If you had been raised by football fans, and then if you lost your interest in football, how much would you care about preserving football, and why?

Do you see religion as more important than any other form of entertainment, and if so, why?

Religions routinely go extinct just like many other cultural constructs go extinct.

I've heard of a few people getting exercised over languages going extinct. I have a really hard time understanding the problem. Linguistic diversity, as far as I can tell, has an extremely poor ratio of benefits to costs.

I like football (soccer to you), but there is an enormous qualitative difference between football and any of what I was talking about, since football is not historically grown to the extent religious traditions are and doesn't reveal that much about the past and human nature in general as religious traditions do. There is an enormous difference between the appreciation of cultural artefacts and entertainment even. Go and look it up yourself.
Regarding the language thing, you just sound like someone who has never seriously studied a foreign language, let alone and ancient one. Hence you cannot expect me to find any value in your argument, since you are talking about things you know nothing about. Our linguistic diversity is one of the wonders of humanity and its benefits by far outweigh the "cost" to study it. In fact, we wouldn't be talking to each other if it hadn't been for my curiosity to learn other languages, including English. If I travel to a country whose language I don't yet speak, I don't think "what a pity these people do not speak English", instead I understand that the language is the key to comprehend anything about the environment I find myself in. If you can't see that, go and ask your kindergarten teacher for help

But what ancient religious tradition has any practical value? Which of our pressing problems can we attack any more efficiently by studying religious entertainments?

Historians can get excited about whatever they like. You may notice there aren't a lot of historians.

Yes there are, and fortunately there are also many non-historians whose sense for the historical is more developed than yours.

One does, however, have to adhere to a bit of irrationality to imagine that everyone should share one particular taste in entertainment.

I don't see where I am being irrational when I say that some cultural and historical knowledge should be considered part of general education. Richard Dawkins makes this point in "The God Delusion" (chapter 9) and he ought to be commended for that.
And you didn't manage to bring up that silly football thing yet another time in this paragraph, did you?

A reasonable appreciation of reality leads us to conclude that religions are a form of entertainment. Entertainments come and go. A few eccentrics might try to carry on classical entertainment traditions that the vast majority of people care nothing about, and I don't see a problem if that's what they want to pursue.

No. That is relativism, which I strongly resent. The same applies to your point about music. We have very good criteria to determine why Bach's St. Matthew passion is of a higher cultural value than the latest Britney Spears album. And while I still believe that there is a difference between entertainment and art, I can nevertheless make the point that even if you consider operas and Shakespeare plays just one form of entertainment, you will have to admit that there are qualitative differences between its different modifications. Religious liturgy in particular has always been a form of "entertainment" for the elite, which is why not any random Joe was allowed to participate in Cathedral services in previous centuries. The claim that liturgy is a declining phenomenon that was once universally practised is just false. "The Oxford Diocesan Visitation for 1738 report that in thirty parishes in Oxfordshire, fewer than 5 percent of the total population had taken communion in that particular year. Other visitation reports yield similarly low rates of taking communion over the remainder of the eighteenth century" (Stark 2007).

The cathedrals are less objectively impressive than the Egyptian pyramids, which were earlier and even more stupidly expensive attempts at immortality through piling up rocks. Do you equally support the maintenance of ancient Egyptian tradition?

A fair number of eccentrics do take an interest in Egyptology, but I haven't heard many Egyptologists insisting that we should all share their interest. Maybe some do, I suppose.

I support the preservation of our knowledge about "ancient Egyptian traditions" and further research into the matter, if it's that what you mean. And the cathedrals are not the result of stupid attempts, but of incredible architectural and artistic skill. Again, go and study the subject before you talk about it.

Sure, and almost always this will be at taxpayer expense, because the result is unlikely to lead to any product which sells.

Anthropologists don't work cheaply. They have to get funded and paid. The private sector doesn't tend to support anthropological studies of religion because these studies add nothing which markets can find a way to value.

Well, most of the world's great universities are in fact private organisations and fortunately their opinion on the matter differs from yours quite significantly. Many areas of research, including most science, will probably never be applied to anything "which sells". We atheists know that there is no purpose in LIFE even, apart from the purpose that we ourselves assign to it. And research in ANY academic field is always a wonderful purpose.

Other Comments by Julius Morche

149. Comment #159755 by Corylus on April 13, 2008 at 3:21 am

Hi Julius

Don't worry, I am not going to ask you to deal with another very long post. It is just that there is one thing that I am curious about with regards to the whole 'cultural catholic' thing. I wonder whether you can help me out.

You say that you enjoy going to church for the ritual and what have you. You enjoy it. Fine.

OK, not my idea of enjoyment. I would rather have a lay in on a Sunday morning. Going to church would involve waking up early, putting and on my best clothes, going to a big building, listening to man droning on etc... only to fall back asleep again! . Personally, I would rather just roll over, start snoring again and save myself the whole effort :)

Anyway, I digress. My question.

When the collection plate comes round do you put money in it?

I am sure that you are smart enough to see what I am asking. I can understand how people enjoy ritual and nice buildings. What I cannot understand is why people continue to finance institutions whose rationale they do not agree with, and whose track record is, to put it at its mildest, questionable.

I am curious as to how you deal with this conflict. Maybe you just slip a button on the plate and hope no one notices?

Thanks.

Other Comments by Corylus

150. Comment #159762 by AllanW on April 13, 2008 at 4:02 am

Fightingfalcon in comment #159688

And here we depart. Please don't take any of these comments personally as I've enjoyed your contributions over many threads here recently but you exhibit the typical American views on free markets so I'll use you as an opponent if you don't mind :)

Corporations exist as part of society not apart from it. Their existence is formed by a grant from whatever organisation is empowered to govern society. As such, even after they have been created, they remain within the reach of those powers. This point has been lost by many, typically free market, supporters. To be even clearer; the corporations' objectives (even though they may be changed from time to time and embody purposes other than to make profits) remain subservient to societies wishes and corporations can be amended, closed or reformed in any manner the government chooses should they produce results in any form which that society deems to be unwelcome. The fact that this does not happen in America does not support the typical contention that this is the right or best manner in which to act.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/books/2001/0107.rowe.html
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1272/is_/ai_n6019798
http://www.fee.org/Publications/the-Freeman/article.asp?aid=3702

As for regulation; all economic models are based upon a series of fundamental assumptions about the nature of competitive conditions in markets as well as the actions of participants being to maximise rational, selfish utility (however measured). Again, these assumptions have been forgotten (if they were ever learned) by typical free market adherents.

What they mean in practice is that the applicability of these models to real world conditions is virtually nil as the assumptions (perfect knowledge, open competition, rationality etc) are never present.

To make any market approach these conditions requires regulation in a wide variety of forms. Taxation, regulatory bodies, legislative actions etc all attempt to move actual real world conditions towards those in which economic models and their theories would apply. And this is done because market capitalism is the best, most productive model that humanity has developed so far to increase the welfare of society as a whole. You see, I believe in market theory :) the difference between us is one of purpose and pragmatism.

I've gone on for too long but see the thread below for an interesting discussion about precisely this issue (one of many currently doing the rounds in economic blog circles inspired by the current market failures).

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2008/04/the-deregulatio.html

Other Comments by AllanW