1. Two More Fleas

Comment #144793 by ratio on March 16, 2008 at 6:32 pm

Clearthinker, you ask how the drugs ended up in the Pharmacy, and say:

"Either by
A very well-knowledgeable person who knows all the ingredients and their functions so that he can mix them up again in certain amounts not more or less amount for each medicine â€" must be exact amount otherwise, medicine turn into a poison-

Or
By chances, luck, blindwatcmaker, menotthinking, selfish genes, that made the all the medicines mixing randomly unconsciously and blindly, then there you go we have all the medicines."

In most cases it actually works like this: Someone finds pretty much by accident that some natural product (eg willow bark) has some effect on some condition (eg fever). Long after that, some chemists thinks that the bark works because of a chemical it contains. They extract chemicals from the bark and find that one of them (eg salicylic acid)works the same way as the bark. Other chemists think they can improve on salicylic acid. They work pretty much at random, doing whatever chemistry they know how to do, then test the products. One of the products, asprin, turns out to be in some ways better than salicylic acid. They do all the tests they can think of to see if it's safe. When they think it is, they make a submission to the FDA. If the FDA is satisfied it ends up on the shelf in the pharmacy.

That is, pretty much like evolution works.

If you want to use this as an analogy for creation it would go like this: God found a universe that had been around for a long while. Tinkering with it, he found how it worked. But it didn't work particularly well, so he set about ways to improve it. He tried everything he could think of, pretty much at random, and after trying them all out found that one of them was actually significatly better (in some ways)than the original. He made a submission to the Holy Trinity, who passed it as safe and effective. And that's how we got our universe.

ratio

2. Richard Dawkins on five of his favorite books

Comment #134376 by ratio on February 27, 2008 at 4:46 pm

#82 I'm surprised too. I thought I was the only person who had ever read it.

3. Murder plot against Danish cartoonist

Comment #126274 by ratio on February 12, 2008 at 9:08 pm

#66 Jaster,

I read an interesting observation recently that an itch can elicit a more immediate reaction in a person than moderate pain. That certainly fits my personal experience. The suggestion was made that the reason for the big impact of the itch is that it can be eliminated at once by scratching, so we see no reason for tolerating it. Moderate pain we can tolerate better because we accept that we can't just remove it at will. So is it the case that under torture, provided there is the belief that it stops when information is provided, relatively moderate levels of pain can be effective? That is, quite the opposite to what is intuitive.

4. Blind Faiths

Comment #110838 by ratio on January 12, 2008 at 11:33 pm

al-

Yes, I have met Jews in Iran who seemed quite comfortable there. As for "an ethnically exclusive state ... because God told them they could" I think it was the Brits that told them they could and I don't believe Israel is "ethnically exclusive".

5. Blind Faiths

Comment #110819 by ratio on January 12, 2008 at 5:56 pm

Back to the Ali article:

"Thus, it is not reason that accommodates and encourages the persistent segregation and tribalism of immigrant Muslim populations in the West. It is Romanticism. Multiculturalism and moral relativism promote an idealization of tribal life and have shown themselves to be impervious to empirical criticism."

I don't find it very helpful to identify Romanticism as the problem, it means too many different things. I think the central issue can be unambiguously identified: tolerance. There have been times when muslims have peacefully coexisted with people of other relgions, but I think tyhese are the exception. Certainly the Koran has passages condemning religious tolerance. So should religious tolerance be extended to a religion that opposes the freedom of others?

6. Blind Faiths

Comment #110801 by ratio on January 12, 2008 at 3:48 pm

If the bible and Koran were books promoting (say) a political party, would they be publishable?

7. This human's life, decoded

Comment #67799 by ratio on September 4, 2007 at 9:04 pm

Re #8,

A few months ago I heard a Professor of Islamic Studies interviewed. He said that he had memorised the Koran by the time he was ten. When the interviewer expressed amazement he said it was nothing really, that's all there was to do. So that's one use for rote learning, a combination of spreading propaganda and entertainment.

8. All the mistakes of the godly are merely metaphor

Comment #58366 by ratio on July 24, 2007 at 4:10 pm

BN2,
I share your problem with "existence". It would be much easier to understand if there was simply nothing. But in that case I wouldn't get to think about it. Given that existence somehow got going I think that science has done a pretty good job explaining how we got from there to here. A few serious in principle problems remain, like consciousness, but I don't see much about the world that is intrinsically mysterious (I'm assuming here that we will in due course get a sensible interpretation of quantum mechanics).

But getting back to existence, how does any sort of creator help? To me, it just makes things more difficult. Not only does the creator have to exist (how did that happen?) but it also have to have intentions (to create, at least). To me, that's more difficult to understand than just existence.

I see theories of emergent phenomena to be some sort of consolation. The best example I know is evolution. As soon as there was a self-replicating molecule, something like evolution is underway. So did evolution exist before the first self-replicating molecule? I have no trouble believing that evolution sprang into existence as soon as there was something to evolve.

I think existence is something like that (but some of the finer details escape me).

9. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #58156 by ratio on July 23, 2007 at 6:05 pm

PeterK#239,243

The issue here is the meaning of the word "islamophobia". Are you sure that KKK, skinheads and slimy corners really have a strong position on this?

10. Look Forward to Anger

Comment #53721 by ratio on July 2, 2007 at 10:14 pm

peace...

"Yes, it seemed a silly comment. However one way in which you [Australians]are certainly "less free" is that you are obliged to take part in elections. Forcing you to vote is hardly liberal."

Actually, we are not forced to vote, we are "forced" (ie unless we have a good excuse we pay a fine)to turn up at the voting booth on election days and have our name crossed off.

11. Al Gore on Reason

Comment #45653 by ratio on May 28, 2007 at 5:09 pm

pewkatchoos asked:
Do you, personally, not find the IPPC a worrying organisation?

and you replied:

I have no idea. I am not personally concerned with the IPPC. What concerns me is the huge consensus of scientific opinion.

Try:
http://www.warwickhughes.com/climate/consensus.htm

for some views and links on what "consensus" means to the IPCC (broadly, they only ask people who agree with them). Some of the views are quite old (which to me means that this has been a long standing practice of the IPCC)but I'm sure, if you are so concerned of the importance of consensus, you can find more recent ones (I googled IPCC consensus). I posted an outline of an interview I heard recently on ABC Counterpoint (which Brian dismissed as "anecdote") in which a an academic who agreed to be a participant on the skeptic's side was sent the report two weeks before the final report was due, and after the Executive Summary had been released. No doubt his inability to reply due to the administrative arrangements in place could be put down to his inability to find so much as a single flaw in the report.

r

12. Al Gore on Reason

Comment #45431 by ratio on May 27, 2007 at 6:00 pm

steve(118), Going with the consensus is definitely not the way science progresses. Progress in science is always a process of challenging the consensus. Thousands of examples of course, but maybe for this thread Darwin will do. It is difficult for the nonexpert to put this into practice, but a critical approach to what is being said is critical. I heard a good account of the "consensus" approach from the IPCC recently from someone who had been invited to be a dissenting voice of all three of the IPCC reports. He declined for the most recent one because 1) the executive summary had already been written and released, and 2) he was given two weeks to prepare his report, which was impossible given his other responsibilities (as an academic). He pointed out that the only people who are in a position to contribute are those working full time in that area, whose jobs depend on it (they have a financial incentive) or people paid by an interest group such as an energy group, who are obviously wrong whatever they say (because they have a financial incentive).

The idea that scientists are invariably honest and ethical in their announcements is in my experience a joke. In reporting the actual evidence they are almost always honest, because falsification and fraud is so easily uncovered. But in projections based on the observations almost anything goes (except for the golden rule that in the end they should be given still more public money).

r

13. Would the World Be Safer Without Religion?

Comment #43795 by ratio on May 22, 2007 at 5:03 pm

Shuggy (71) wrote: "We couldn't ethically do it to children, but why not set up a couple of "Big Brother" style houses and give them those rules? Not only that, you (and the world) would be watching everything they did."

What an interesting idea. It would actually be do-able but maybe not a commercial success. As an experiment it would have the obvious flaw that the uncertainty principle would be a major factor (behaviour is changed by the fact that we are observing it)but that's generally the case in the political/economic/sociology area. To me it would mean that conclusions would be less clear but not that no conclusions could be drawn at all. And it would depend on what hypotheses were being tested and how.

For example:
Two pools of willing volunteers who are prepared to identify themselves as committed Xists or Yists; random selection of an uneven number of participants for a particular trial; at the end of each period vote by participants to boot out one participant.
Hypothesis: the X/Yists when in the majority will vote to maintain their majority.

Unfortunately, the number of trials needed for statistical significance might make for boring television.

14. Would the World Be Safer Without Religion?

Comment #43531 by ratio on May 21, 2007 at 11:25 pm

Reply to Comment #43486 by Richard Morgan on May 21, 2007 at 5:41 pm

RM, I don't know if it helps but I do have exchanges somewhat like that with my wife (not yet ex-). Actually, my wife does most of the washing because she has worked out that the machine does most of the work. A tad off topic but it is a good reminder that (as I think Paretto pointed out, or at least it was the first time I saw it in print)that people normally start with the desired conclusion and then construct the argument to get there.

r

15. Would the World Be Safer Without Religion?

Comment #43529 by ratio on May 21, 2007 at 11:10 pm

BT, My point is that objectively the comment has the form of a scientific hypothesis and should not be rejected outright as theist nonsense. People are asking for "proof" of the existence of god but seem to be rejecting the possibility of "proof" that religion does some net good.

On the positive correlation between religiousity and violence, are Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao a plus or minus on the religion scale? For me they are obviously a minus (no appeal to a deity) but others say they would be a plus because they created their own religion around themselves. Depending on how they are included (and if data is weighted according to body count) the correlation would look very different.

Either way, it seems to me that atheism as understood here certainly does not guarantee a low level of violence.

16. Would the World Be Safer Without Religion?

Comment #43498 by ratio on May 21, 2007 at 7:21 pm

"But when we observe the horror of religiously motivated violence or hatred, maybe the correct question is, Without religion would it be even worse?"

This strikes me as the key comment in the article, and a very reasonable question to ask atheists. In fact, it almost has the form of a scientific hypothesis. As he points out it isn't something that can easily be investigated by a controlled experiment. But I see no problem in principle. Take two islands, populate them with people of similar backgrounds (I suppose you'd have to use children). Tell one group that god was watching everything they did and would punish them if they did anything wrong (wrong, according to god's rules). Explain to the other group that it was in their mutual self-interest to obey the same set of rules, but no eternal damnation etc.

How would this thought experiment turn out? To me, at the very least, the outcome isn't obvious.

I'm quite happy being an atheist, but I'm not so sure about the rest of you.

r

17. Here Comes the Fourth Musketeer.

Comment #34981 by ratio on April 25, 2007 at 8:17 pm

Reply to: Comment #34686 by roach on April 24, 2007 at 11:07 pm

I'm thinking about societies run by people brought up as and by atheists. But I agree the countries you mention are probably making a start. I think we need to keep an eye on them for another three generations to be sure.

18. Shout your doubt out loud, my fellow unbelievers

Comment #34977 by ratio on April 25, 2007 at 7:56 pm

I think "fundamentalist atheist" can be understood by regarding the "fundamentalist" tag as refering to the degree of belief (cf JM Keynes' theory of subjective probability. On the other hand "militant" refers to the behaviour of the militant atheist.I think we also need "evangelical atheist" for obvious reasons.

19. Here Comes the Fourth Musketeer.

Comment #34269 by ratio on April 23, 2007 at 5:11 pm

Reply to: Comment #33963 by krogercomplete on April 22, 2007 at 9:57 pm

I think we agree. I am quite happy being an atheist myself but am not so sure about the merits of trying to convert everyone else. In particular I think there is a huge difference between the fundamentalist versions of religion and the wishy-washy versions like the Anglicanism I was brought up on (as RD was). For me, becoming an atheist was easy and undramatic, but I've heard of many Catholics who have found it very difficult. From what I understand the difference is that even after they have lost their faith these Catholics still carry the burdens of original sin and the prospect of roasting in hell for not believing.

I'm not impressed by RD's argument against moderate religion, that by picking which bits of the bible to believe you are applying a different set of rules, so why not just tell us what those rules are and forget the bible. Well, what RD seems to be saying is that the rules must be stated explicity, wheras the moderates are happy with a set of implicit rules. I can't see this as a big deal.

But I can't accept that god as the Ultimate Policeman requires the roasting in hell forever idea. Just a bit of "You Won't Get Away With It, You Know" seems to me to be enough.

20. Here Comes the Fourth Musketeer.

Comment #34252 by ratio on April 23, 2007 at 4:26 pm

In reply to Comment #33972 by roach on April 22, 2007 at 11:47 pm

I agree that's possible but what I'm looking for here is empirical evidence. At first sight Nazism and Communism are examples of atheist regimes but not ones that would be held up as examples of ethical regimes. Both failed, probably not due to their atheism, but are there any successes to point to? I sense the possibility of a bit of social evolution at work.

21. Here Comes the Fourth Musketeer.

Comment #33959 by ratio on April 22, 2007 at 9:31 pm

russel and spinoza,

Your comments remind me of what I think is a weak point in Dawkins' argument. Where will moral instruction come from in an atheist world. I have noted the discussion in TGD regarding the apparent universality of ethical principles but to me this does not go far enough. It's not the principles but following them that matters. I know plenty of people who I'm quite sure do things that they know are wrong. Certainly most of history gives empirical evidence that these ethical principles are widely disobeyed. And I'm not so sure about hardwired altruism. Shouldn't that be evident in young children? In my experience they are pretty much amoral.

Does anyone have any empirical evidence of ethical atheist societies? As distinct from ethical atheists?

22. The Empty Wager

Comment #32945 by ratio on April 18, 2007 at 7:24 pm

To be fair to Pascal, I think he had in mind a reason to allow yourself to be exposed to argument in favour of the existence of god. If you listened to the arguments and were genuinely persuaded to believe you would be better off (in terms of his wager) than if you refused to listen.

/r

23. Medicine without Evolution Make Sense?

Comment #32937 by ratio on April 18, 2007 at 7:00 pm

Comment #32779 by pugowner on April 18, 2007 at 8:46 am

"I find it disingenuous to use the example of bacteria developing antibiotic resistance in arguments about evolution."

I don't see your point. With the popularly held view of evolution as being the survival of the fittest there is a problem with testability. How do you define "fittest" except being those who survive. But with antibiotic resistance the matter can be investigated with controlled experiments. "Fittest" can be defined ahead of the experiments (ability to grow in a medium containing an antibiotic concentration that kills the control group). And it can easily be followed in real time rather than in the fossil record.

Another thing about antibiotic resistance is the stark difference it presents in terms of the interpretation of what's going on.In evolutionary terms the bacterium is adapting to changed circumstances in the usual way. In theist terms god has just noticed (it took a while)that we have developed a means of combating one of the many diseases he helpfully provided to make us suffer; he is not happy about it and has intervened to get things back to where they were.

/r

24. Against God

Comment #32128 by ratio on April 15, 2007 at 9:27 pm

If by "reason" people mean the rules of logic, these are really very weak. You need to start with some premises or axioms before anything can be done. If two people share the same axioms they can have a logical exchange and reach a conclusion, even change the other's mind. But if there's no agreement about the premises no progress is possible, even when both sides use impeccable logic. Hence the problem between theists and atheists.