1. Richard Dawkins' secular army must be stopped. God is behind some of our greatest art

Comment #160652 by Graham on April 14, 2008 at 8:57 am

Did Lalla put you up to it Richard? More to the point, will she too be making a comeback appearance in the same episode?

Good luck

2. Atheists An Increasingly Outspoken Minority

Comment #129343 by Graham on February 19, 2008 at 2:00 am

'it's the certainty of science' huh?

Surely 'it's the uncertainty of science' that is much more intellectually honest?

The overall cultural context portrayed in this article presents a nice contrast to my experiences in the UK. I was at a small family reunion at the weekend (after 6 years in N. America) and despite not having met some people for decades my now retired relatives were very open about their opinions of religion - without any prompting from me.

Although there was plenty of self censorship with regards to differences in politics, it appeared there was a general and open agreement as to the negative aspects of religion. It is just so refreshingly normal! I'm glad to be home :o)

3. Happy Birthday Josh Timonen!

Comment #121161 by Graham on February 3, 2008 at 3:30 am

Hi Josh,

I stopped visiting and posting on the Brights forum, the day this web site opened. It's a great success.

Thanks

Graham

4. Honour Killings

Comment #113985 by Graham on January 21, 2008 at 6:22 am

I realise it can sometimes feel hopeless PJG and I'm tempted to blow my top as much as anyone else here, but really, the only way to beat fanaticism is to disarm it, not feed it. (That is unless you are looking for all out war, and I think we all want to avoid that.)

When all you see is red, you are in the same state of mind as the fanatics. You have lost your advantage. I think you turn the tide by convincing those at the edges, rather than fighting those in the middle, if you see what I mean.

5. Honour Killings

Comment #113786 by Graham on January 20, 2008 at 2:51 pm

Hold on a minute. We all can recognise the things that we disagree with, strongly, in this article. But if we are to ever move forward, then maybe we should disarm this man's arguments by addressing some of the concerns we might have in common.

I'm sure there are many parents who are concerned about their teenage children limiting their options in life by early unwanted pregnancy or being interested in nothing more constructive than binge drinking.

I wouldn't budge an inch on the negative aspects which many have pointed out, but maybe highlighting our common concerns would allow the negatives to dissolve away? The only long term solution is after all to break down the 'us and them' mentality, not stir it up.

Remember that fanatical theists often think there is something fundamentally different between those with and without religious belief (the us and them)...we know better...we have billions of years of ancestry in common (we are all us) :o)

6. George Scales, War Hero and Generous Friend of RDFRS

Comment #113092 by Graham on January 18, 2008 at 2:34 pm

Dear George,

As many have said already using better words than I, thank you for your bravery in the fight against fanaticism. Also, thank you for bringing out the best in us all here. I hope you can still keep your upper lip stiff. Mine was wobbling after reading some of these posts.

Good luck with the operation and best wishes.

Graham Bradley, London

7. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #100461 by Graham on December 18, 2007 at 4:36 pm

Walk,

Probably more likely cigar or pipe smokers from my experience. They do taste better after all.

...the cigars and pipes I mean, but I guess those that smoke them too :o)

8. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #100451 by Graham on December 18, 2007 at 4:11 pm

I'm sorry for your loss, and I see the reason for your zealousness, and further more I respect your point that the 'PR issue is pretty much the only thing we are talking about here anyway.' If that is all we are talking about then I concede to your point.

However, I do not agree with those that mix up the issues of 'risk' and 'nuisance'. I'm not 'pro-smoking', I'm anti-irrationalism. If it's the nuisance you don't like then say so, but those who wish an occasional smoke should not be nannied or worse still deamonised. Nevertheless, I'll stand beside you when it comes to the opposing the commercialisation of tobacco. I hate big tobacco as much as the next man. It's back to that complicated issue of prohibition vs regulation.

You are fighting a strawman in terms of your appeal to health professionals. I agree with 99% of what you say. But I don't support puritanism. It is so good to be back in the UK after years in puritan North America with no alcohol (or soon, no smoking) in public, or nudity on TV. It's the double standards that gets to me. Life IS a little gritty around the edges. You mitigate it by keeping it public, not by pushing it behind the curtains.

9. Borders Tags Atheist Book with 'O Come All Ye Faithless' Cards

Comment #100440 by Graham on December 18, 2007 at 3:54 pm

I want them!

10. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #100423 by Graham on December 18, 2007 at 3:32 pm

To those anti-smoking Zealots - your emotions go so far beyond the science that I suspect you may be victims of a faith-based anti-smoking meme. Get over it and leave Hitch alone. If you don't like the smell then just say so, I don't either. But don't turn it into some overhyped pseudoscientific argument. There is a big difference in risk between working 40 years in a smoke choked bar and sharing a few minutes in a room with a single guy having a quiet fag.

I don't smoke, and nowadays I prefer a smoke free environment, but I remember the days when I thought a pub or club had no character without a smokey haze. It's important recognise the difference between culture and science!

11. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #100408 by Graham on December 18, 2007 at 3:15 pm

I feel a little uncomfortable with replacing 'WASPs' with 'WASAs'. Next time should include Ayaan Hirsi Ali amongst other great non WASAs.

12. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #100402 by Graham on December 18, 2007 at 3:04 pm

USA_Limey wrote:

Hour three was the drinking competition but it wasn't filmed.

Don_Quix:
Note to the producers - I would gladly pay a premium to watch this on DVD.

It's not worth it, they just end up putting on some Led Zep really loud and playing air guitar before sticking their arms around each others shoulders and slurring 'I love you mate, no, I really do, I do mate' and then falling asleep on the couch.

13. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #97711 by Graham on December 12, 2007 at 2:37 pm

"put their hope for the future in God and not in technology, economic or political ideologies"
Jonathan Morris

Political or theological ideology...what's the difference? Let's put our hope in humanity and scepticism of those with patriarchal titles who cynically or naively market faith based doctrines.

14. A New Flea in Town!

Comment #95359 by Graham on December 8, 2007 at 6:14 am

Louise, are you familiar with the expression 'strawman argument'? You seem to know a few.

1) The lyrics of 'Imagine' are hardly the issue here.

2) If you take out what the Vardy schools teach badly, such as critical thinking, and leave in what they teach well, then I understand they probably will be good schools.

3) I doubt there are many atheists (certainly nor Dawkins) who think parents should be banned from teaching their kids religion. But...would a little more social pressure on parents to encourage them not to teach their kids that they were born sinful not be a good thing?

Please learn to question your own assumptions. You appear to be carrying around a lot of misinformation and preconceived prejudices.

Cheers

15. Sir David Attenborough on God

Comment #88082 by Graham on November 14, 2007 at 2:44 pm

I was at the Geology Society Bicentennial black tie dinner last night and was sat very close to the spot in the "cathedral" to natural history where Sir Richard is being interviewed (he was there). What surprised and disappointed me was that the Society said grace before dining. I suspect the majority there were atheist, but apparently conservative traditions are more important than intellectual honesty among our learned societies!

16. I'm gonna be a MOVIE STAR

Comment #65777 by Graham on August 26, 2007 at 1:25 pm

Badger,

Yep, that's the guy. I got the impression that maybe Haggard discovered who Dawkins is during the filming and that's why he got so aggressive at the end. This is all speculation of course.

It would be interesting to hear from Richard what their policy was on "undercover" filming, disclosure and permissions etc and compare that with this Mark Mathis character. Just being contrarian :o)

17. I'm gonna be a MOVIE STAR

Comment #65569 by Graham on August 24, 2007 at 9:34 pm

Be careful not to be the pot that called the kettle black. Remember in the filming of the Root of all Evil? RD and crew weren't entirely upfront with Reverend Rent Boy...his name escapes me for now.

18. God Bless Me, It's a Best-Seller!

Comment #64103 by Graham on August 17, 2007 at 6:31 pm

For science writing I love Dawkins, but for social commentary on religion, Hitchens gets my vote every time.

19. Interview with Richard Dawkins about 'The Enemies of Reason'

Comment #63387 by Graham on August 14, 2007 at 4:03 am

I agree that this change in emphasis from god to new age bunkum may actually assist undermine all supernaturalism in a less controversial way. However, I think Judy's obvious underlying resentment may be indicative of the fact that RD has become a lightning rod and people like her may now simply switch off and stop thinking when they see him or hear his arguments. It is part of the inherent problem of trying to consecutively play bad cop and then good cop.

20. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #63383 by Graham on August 14, 2007 at 3:45 am

I find the element of unrespectful attacks on darwin2 somewhat disturbing. I understand your frustration, but lets remember that all sorts of waifs and strays may find there way onto this web site and when they do I would hope they are treated courteously. Remember that under different circumstances with different influences...but there for the grace of god....

Let's not give the closed minded the ammunition they seek.

Cheers

Graham

21. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #63376 by Graham on August 14, 2007 at 3:28 am

Hi darwin2,

From reading your posts I get the impression that you are from a long line of sceptical and Enlightenment thinkers. You appear to be expounding the deist view point.

A number of people here seem to have been distracted by your talk of "design". I think what you are really asking yourself is "Why is there order rather than no order?". In a sense you are right, that there is no scientific answer to a "why" question of that nature. You have decided that the existance of order in the universe implies some underlying metaphysical order in the form of a creator.

I don't think that order in the universe does necessarily imply the existance of an ordered creator, for this simply adds unecessary complexity to your explanation. However, I agree that in a sense we must remain agnostic about questions like "Why order, not chaos?"

For me there is no real difference in saying that the universe is the source of order or that the universe came out of underlying source of order. The confusion comes when you start to stray from deist to theist. The theory of evolution and associated evidence does provide a very strong argument that consciousness and intelligence are the products of our universe.

Although there is no logical reason why different forms of consciousness cannot be created from and the creator of our universe, the fact that there is evidence that it was created from our universe does seem to imply that creation did not necessarily involve a conscious creator.

22. The Out Campaign

Comment #60198 by Graham on August 1, 2007 at 9:54 am

Wee Flea: "Yawn. I wish you people could read."

I think you need to take a deep breath. Remember every comment was posted by an individual. The "Yawn" and "you people" suggest the poster (me) is boring and incapable of thinking for themselves. These ad homs are not the way to win respect for your ideas, and remember we are talking about ideas, not people. Your ad homs have disqualified yourself from serious consideration until such time as you are prepared to rise above such petty language. Goodbye.

23. The Out Campaign

Comment #60066 by Graham on July 31, 2007 at 6:20 pm

Hi Wee Flee, a few comments

1)"Quasi religious nature of this site" - Should it therefore be considered quasi religious whenever a like minded group of people chat about issues that concern them. Funny definition of religion.

2) "widespread informal surveys of the Web" -
Should no scientist ever have an opinion or cast a vote in an election because of insufficient data?

3) "We know we are right" - A manner of speech. We know we know nothing 100% and we have perhaps a better idea of what we don't know than those of a more credulous bent.

4) "as Hitchins sticks the boot in and RD himself walks in all the subtilty of hob nail jack boots" - Depends who you are comparing to, the little old lady at the back of the church or the 911 terrorists.

5) "This whole political campaign is actualy a call to discriminate." - I agree, this "campaign" is all about being more discriminating about beliefs, NOT people.

6) "What else will you do, united around your lack of belief?" - Unite around a common respect FOR reason, rationality, evidence and awe and wonder of the natural (as opposed to imaginary supernatural) world

7) "you would all be shouting about commercialism and making money etc. Does this not apply here?" - Dunno, who gets the money, what is it used for and how much?

"is time for him to resign from his post at Oxford as the Professor of the Public understanding of Science?" - Absolutely not, this is the most dramatic and public defence of the scientific method in the face of primitive superstition in living memory. Keep it up.

24. OUT Campaign Launched, 'Scarlet Letter' Shirts Now Available!

Comment #59505 by Graham on July 29, 2007 at 9:19 am

Just bought my T-shirt. Still only order 144. Come on, snap them up.

Just to play devil's advocate for a moment though, the only slight reservation I have is the old issue of being defined as A-something rather than Pro something.

25. In the name of the Father

Comment #55373 by Graham on July 10, 2007 at 9:03 pm

"Hitchens has written a book that is seriously harmful, not because of his attack on religion, some of it deserved, but because he will divert people away from the real problem: which is we human beings, both religious and irreligious."

The good Bishop may have a point here. However, he has totally ignored the argument that teaching respect for faith for its own sake and disrespect for evidence and reason inevitably lead to the kind of divisive and harmful dogmatism to which human beings are susceptible.

26. Your favorite book in the last 25 years?

Comment #37229 by Graham on May 3, 2007 at 7:07 pm

Well, I voted for Posession by A.S. Byatt. I enjoyed it :)

27. Evolution Booklet

Comment #35506 by Graham on April 27, 2007 at 11:50 am

I don't like the fact that it claims to be about evolution, but then delves into theology, and finally appears to tend towards the non-overlapping magisteria position. Or at least that's what I got out of it at a glance.

I'd prefer explanations of evolution to be kept in the scientific context. If they want to produce another issue called The Big Picture on Origins Theology then that would be fine, but different.

28. NEXT MONDAY: Bill O'Reilly interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #34487 by Graham on April 24, 2007 at 7:57 am

konquererz,

I make no apologies. North American culture as a whole, both in the USA and Western Canada is generally more rude, brash and impolite than I think is good for the morale of society as a whole. It is not an insult, it is a fact. I think it used to be better, but it is rapidly going down hill. If you like it that way, that's fine, but I'm leaving.

29. NEXT MONDAY: Bill O'Reilly interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #34438 by Graham on April 24, 2007 at 4:15 am

"Seems all the slandering of O'Reilly was unwarranted." 149. Harlon57

Yes and no. He didn't blow up, but he didn't attempt to get the most out of his interviewee either. It was basically bad interviewing technique. It was all about O'Reilly and not RD.

Given that he'd invited someone onto his show his attitude still seemed impolite to my English sensibilities. The fact that O'Reilly's interview could even be considered polite is a sad reflection on North American culture. That is why, after 6 years, I will be returning to the UK this Autumn.

30. NEXT MONDAY: Bill O'Reilly interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #34435 by Graham on April 24, 2007 at 3:57 am

Well done Prof Dawkins.

I thought RD smiled more than usual. Which was good. The thing that struck me was how short it was and the fact that O'Reilly did not enter into a real discussion.

The worrying thing is that this is probably the closest many of the viewers come to considering these matters and they are being lead to believe that these disconnected sound bites are a real discussion.

I find it sad that Fox media appears to have no responsibility to truly inform the public. It felt like watching the death of journalism. No wonder Fox viewers think Bush is intelligent enough to run the country if this is the level of discussion they are used to.

The emptiness of O'Reilly's arguments and his commendation of the book suggested to me that he may be a closet agnostic and doesn't want his target audience to know.

31. NEXT MONDAY: Bill O'Reilly interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #33201 by Graham on April 19, 2007 at 2:47 pm

"Some viewers will come here to RichardDawkins.net, and some will pick up The God Delusion." Josh

Ok, fair point, but Prof. Dawkins needs to keep in mind that those are the people he's talking to, and not to O'Reilly. Take the moral high ground and stick to it.

32. NEXT MONDAY: Bill O'Reilly interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #33175 by Graham on April 19, 2007 at 2:16 pm

As I mentioned under the thread I started on the forum, this is a big mistake. Richard Dawkins shouldn't give O'Reilly the credibility of allowing him interview time. This is a no-win situation, O'Reilly always gives himself the last word.

But if he must do it then I implore him to keep a sense of humour and don't let O'Reilly get under his skin. I wish him the best of luck (whatever that means).

33. Flea Circus!

Comment #32906 by Graham on April 18, 2007 at 4:45 pm

Any of you Brits remember the Flea Circus in Michael Bentine's Potty time!

Thanks for the nostalgia moment :)

34. For God's Sake

Comment #31608 by Graham on April 13, 2007 at 1:17 pm

You have to look at the bigger picture. Religion, like nationalism and extreme political ideologies are all dogmas that divide people. Reducing emphasis on the dogmas like religion that divide people whilst encouraging more cooperative behaviours will decrease tensions in the long run.

35. Einstein & Faith

Comment #31438 by Graham on April 12, 2007 at 5:09 pm

I'm no relativist but there is something about the current definition of "laws" that are out there, rather than in our scientific models, that seems to be a hangover from theism.

36. The Most Hated Family in America

Comment #29983 by Graham on April 5, 2007 at 11:30 pm

Thank goodness Fred Phelps doesn't have the intelligence to spread his influence beyond his family. He'd make a good candidate for the next Hitler.

37. Richard Dawkins: Author of the Year!

Comment #28330 by Graham on March 28, 2007 at 7:01 pm

Hmmm...yes along with those other illustrious authors...like Jamie Oliver and Kelly Osborne by the look of the photo gallery. I think it's more of a useful platform to popularise the naturalistic world view rather than any great honour. Nice one nevertheless.

38. Stephen Hawking Says Universe Created from Nothing

Comment #28223 by Graham on March 28, 2007 at 12:33 pm

I don't care what you guys say, I still got a thrill when on a rare visit to Oxford I looked over to see Hawkings with his assistant sat next to us in the Turf Tavern!

http://www.theturftavern.co.uk/directions.html

39. Peanut Butter, The Atheist's Nightmare!

Comment #27904 by Graham on March 27, 2007 at 7:27 am

I understand that in parts of asia the cultural norm is to hold the banana by the stem and peal it from the other end!

40. Happy 66th Birthday, Richard Dawkins!

Comment #27730 by Graham on March 26, 2007 at 11:23 am

I read the story by Michael Shermer about how being at the Mt Wilson telescope brought a tear to your eye Richard and it reminded me how a tear has come to my eyes at moments when I am overwhelmed by science and nature: seeing Kilimanjaro for the first time; standing next to an Apollo rocket at Cape Canaveral; watching a group of transient orcas glide within a few feet of my kayak; watching the explanations of life fall effortlessly into place when reading The Selfish Gene.

Looking through the many tributes this morning I was struck by how positive they are. The majority say thank you for supporting science, evolution and rationality. At times this movement can seem to be focussed on attacking the other side, but our real strength is in the values we share, rather than the values we do not share with others.

It's good to know that "the grass roots" can offer a tribute as meaningful, if not more so, than any honoury degree ceremony.

Thank YOU.

41. If only gay sex caused global warming

Comment #27611 by Graham on March 25, 2007 at 4:25 pm

Thanks for the links Whoopscareless. I wonder if Durkin is really as stupid and ignorant as he comes across. My guess is that he is bitter that he did badly in science at school!

I only hope the voices of reason reach the masses who watched the Channel 4 documentary and fell for it.

BTW let me add my support of Daniel Gilbert. Anyone who thinks they know themselves should read Stumbling on Happiness, you'll be surprised.

42. Mr. Deity

Comment #27367 by Graham on March 24, 2007 at 8:46 am

The best new comedy in years! But tell me, maybe I'm being stupid...it's obvious who Jesse and Lucy are but which biblical character is Larry playing and where does his name come from?

43. If only gay sex caused global warming

Comment #27364 by Graham on March 24, 2007 at 8:32 am

..ahem, we'll ignore that intrusive bit of homophobia shall we.

I watched the Channel 4 documentary on the web last night. At first I was annoyed that Channel 4 was irresponsible in showing such a biased presentation, but during watching it I came to realise that they have given the deniers a rope to hang themselves with.

Big All may justifiably be accused of alarmism, but these guys are out-and-out dishonest. I couldn't believe my eyes when they drew the graph correlating solar irradiance and temperature over 1000 years and dishonestly stopped solar radiance graph where it diverges from temperature in about 1970. Check out figure 5 here:

http://www.mps.mpg.de/projects/sun-climate/results.html

They obviously know that this is a problem for their weak and politically influenced argument or they would have addressed it in the programme. I just don't understand what motivates these people when they so obviously know the evidence upon which the IPCC and others work is based.

The science is complex enough to understand without these dishonest liars muddying the waters. Let's hope this documentary exposes their unscientific agenda.

44. If only gay sex caused global warming

Comment #27244 by Graham on March 23, 2007 at 4:11 pm

Tom,

Thanks for clarifying your point. I still think that political rhetoric needs to keep its feet steaped in the scientific evidence. Big Al may have shot himself in the foot by concentrating on extreme examples, which laid him open to accusations of being "alarmist".

If you want something for "Joe Public" then maybe the economic and social arguments are more relevant. I hope to read this in the next few months:

http://www.amazon.com/Economics-Climate-Change-Stern-Review/dp/0521700809/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-5381446-4740925?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1174691417&sr=1-1

45. The Salem Hypothesis

Comment #27207 by Graham on March 23, 2007 at 2:29 pm

I want to say that this hypothesis is definately onto something, as I'm constantly amazed that the high quality engineering and geoscientist consultancy I work for includes some creationists. However, maybe that is just my engineering vs science prejudice? Like good scientists, we need some data to test this hypothesis.

46. If only gay sex caused global warming

Comment #27197 by Graham on March 23, 2007 at 1:46 pm

Tom,

I'm not sure where you are coming from, but you seem to be mixing up positive and normative statements pretty badly. That's one of the main hinderences with getting the climate change issue across to the public.

Normative statements are value based and someone who is predisposed to different values can just ignore them. I'm not sure just replacing one normative statement with another is the answer. Positive (scientific) statemenst are fact based and the data is the final judge of which argument (hypothesis) is correct.

The problem is that the climate change deniers are trying to undermine the positive arguments based on their normative prejudices. If the data shows their positive statements to be incorrect then it immediately throws their values into question.

By the way, does anyone else hate the way the word "skeptic" has been co-opted by politically motivated climate change deniers and conspiracy theorists! I'm a skeptic, loud and proud, which means I look at the weight of the evidence and draw conclusions from it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact-value_distinction

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

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

47. If only gay sex caused global warming

Comment #27176 by Graham on March 23, 2007 at 11:15 am

Nickthelight and Nin9s, it's good to be skeptical, we all are here, but good scientists should also be good at weighing the balance of evidence.

Al Gore et al. may have shot themselves in the foot by mixing up likely scenarios with extreme scenarios and not properly explaining the the probabilities of each.

It is true that the variability and uncertainty in the interpreted 2000 year temperature record is sometimes under-represented; solar radiation affects global temperatures; and temperature appears to rise before CO2 in the ice record. These are all genuine issues of scientific interest and they have/are being honestly addressed by non-politically motivated researchers.

The scientific concensus is still a lot stronger than portrayed in the popular press, especially in the US, where the climate change issue is most strongly at odds with the political/economic culture.

I really would urge anyone with honest skeptisism to read the summary of the new IPCC report (go to "Download summary for policy makers" under information for press):

http://www.ipcc.ch/

If you are still skeptical, then please look for the work of well respected and balanced researchers (not politically motivated YouTube clips). The sheer volume of data and complexity of climate science makes this issue particularly susceptible to data selection.

48. If only gay sex caused global warming

Comment #27156 by Graham on March 23, 2007 at 10:01 am

Nine9s, solar radiation is taken into account in the climate forcing models. Take a look at the Figure 5 presented on this Max Planck institute web site:

http://www.mps.mpg.de/projects/sun-climate/results.html

Now have a look at the combined affect of various modelled climate forcing components and the comparison to actual temperature increase:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png

Finally read the summary new IPCC report (go to "Download summary for policy makers" under information for press):

http://www.ipcc.ch/

There are politically motivated people on both sides of the policy debate, who use data and hypotheses selectively, but the ovewhelming scientific concensus is genuine.

49. God: The Failed Hypothesis

Comment #24111 by Graham on March 4, 2007 at 9:34 pm

I'm an adict. I've listened to every Point of Inquiry podcast. They have become my Sunday sermon that I listen to while jogging around my local woods.

50. The Dawkins Confusion: Naturalism ad absurdum

Comment #23605 by Graham on March 1, 2007 at 5:14 pm

And here's some more insight into the author:

Professor Alvin Plantinga on "Theism as a Properly Basic Belief"

Q. If we accept belief in God as rational on the grounds which you have presented, how do we also know that this belief is true?

A. You have to think about that in the context of the same question with respect to perception or memory or other minds. Fundamentally, in these cases it is a matter of trusting one's cognitive faculties, I guess. It seems true. One's inclined to believe in other minds, one's inclined to believe in the past, one's inclined to believe in immaterial objects and many of us are also under certain circumstances inclined to believe in God. I don't know if there's any way of getting outside of our faculties in these cases and sort of checking the matter independently. I don't know how one would do this.

http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth06.html