Comments by Jayday
Comment #202099 by Jayday on June 30, 2008 at 9:08 pm
Dear Paula,
A marvelous interview with Professor Dawkins! One of the best I've seen.
Do you know if there are plans to release a DVD of the 3 part film Professor Dawkins made for channel 4 in a format that can be played in the USA? This is what I've been waiting for as a follow up to The Root of All Evil DVD. I would love to purchase it. I see that it will be available for a european DVD format.
Jayday
2. Non-voters: It's all in God's hands
Comment #201166 by Jayday on June 29, 2008 at 9:52 am
It was once said that religion is the opium of the people. Those who want power can take it more easily when the masses believe that god will take care of them. Keep em drugged and it is like taking candy from a baby.
3. Does science make belief in God obsolete?
Comment #172018 by Jayday on April 29, 2008 at 6:35 am
Long posts and haven't read them all but wanted to throw this into the mix.
I attended a skeptics society lecture last sunday at Cal Tech in Pasadena. Michael Shermer who is head of the organization hosted the event. Before introducing the lecture speaker, (whos topic was about the brains and similar social behaviors of dolphins and chipmanzees) he showed the crowd this Templeton article. Shermer announced that he was approached by the Templeton Foundation to edit and organize this question. He agreed to do so only if he could also be a contributor.
If my memory serves, Dr. Dawkins doesn't have good words to say about the Templeton foundation because one of its focuses is to connect science and religion, trying to legitimize religion. Even the monetary prize offered by the Templeton foundation is larger than the Nobel prize.
Jayday
4. Interviews with Richard Dawkins and Michael Shermer
Comment #164474 by Jayday on April 20, 2008 at 9:59 am
Sorry that the previous post was duplicated twice within the same post. Not sure what happened.
Jayday
5. Interviews with Richard Dawkins and Michael Shermer
Comment #164473 by Jayday on April 20, 2008 at 9:53 am
Thank you (Unclejeffe, Mjosef, Logicel, ASMargues, Enlightenme..dyak, and Tumara Baap) for your thoughts about Michael Shermer.
As a Skeptic Society member, I have found Shermer to be an articulate speaker when he is speaking alone and covering a topic. He can also be a good moderator during a question and answer session for other speakers. Perhaps, even though he is an articulate guy, he is just a mediocre debater.
For those of you who don’t know him, he became an atheist after having been a born again Christian. I believe his educational back ground is in psychology. I am not sure, but I don’t think he actively performs clinical research. And, I do think he has a niche market with his books.
At the Skeptics Society meeting, I am now recalling that he has mentioned that he is a libertarian..Perhaps what I have witnessed in Shermer over the last few years, is his libertarianism meets skeptic in a very unusual time.
Down further below is a description of what a Skeptic is, written on the Skeptics Society webpage. I am now suspecting that I met Shermer during an unusual time in the history of the Skeptics Society. I was drawn to the Society with the idea to find other atheists. However, the topic of atheism is not the only topic they discuss. Religion/atheism was the hot topic of the day when I started attending their lectures. And, from what I’ve learned, those lectures are the most highly attended. With what is going on here politically in the USA, atheists like myself are yearning for an oasis of non-religious thought with others of like mind.
Perhaps Shermer’s normal mode is to be neutral on all topics AS the functioning head of the Skeptics Society. Perhaps he treats every topic as an open question until scientifically proven otherwise. You can do this with topics such as the environment and even the Holocaust. However, the “god” topic can’t be definitively proved in the same way, so there’s the rub. However, there was a whole range of books published by Dennett, Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris in the last few years, driving the topic into high gear. When high profile speakers came to the Skeptics Society to do lectures, the attendance soared. Shermer had to find larger and larger spaces to house the crowds. I now suspect that Shermer was caught up in the whirlwind of their issues and popularity. Perhaps, by association with the above authors, I wrongly assumed Shermer had some of the same goals. Is it possible that Shermer strayed away from his normal neutral mode during that time and now that the surge has passed, he is coming back to his normal neutral mode, which I witnessed during the D’ Souza debate?
Shermer is an atheist, but also as a libertarian, believing in personal free will, he truly thinks it is okay for anyone to believe what he or she want to just as long as it doesn’t interfere with his expression of free will. From this perspective, each of us is on our own.
However, I seriously doubt that lecture attendees were in the same mode of thought. Because Shermer was associating with Dawkins, Dennett and Harris as head of the Society, those of us who came in during that time assumed he would actively champion the same ideas when it came to the debate with D’ Souza. If it had been any of the three speakers above debating D’ Souza, they would have taken him on with more passion.
Shermer is in a spot. He is a bright guy. But I think I witnessed him backing out of the whirlwind. My mistake to assume he was interested in the same goals or in their league. However, in all fairness, he is somewhat responsible. Many comments he made at the lectures lead me to believe he was aligned with their ideas.
Although I understand his neutrality better now, as head of the Skeptics Society, there is still disappointment. There is a great deal at stake here in the USA and around the world. I don’t think we can just sit by and not take action when religious fundamentalists have aligned with our government and taken control of the press. It isn’t a game, and certainly not one that should be exploited.
So, I’ve learned my lesson. I am a bit wiser and more discerning. Shermer works in a different way and I will not come to expect certain things from him. In some ways he is like Teflon. You can cook on it and it’s easy to clean, but stuff just doesn’t stick.
I will continue to attend Skeptic Society lectures when the presenters are interesting but I have a revised opinion of Shermer’s role. He is the merely the host, not the main attraction.
Discover Skepticism
All our science, measured against reality, is primitive and childlike " and yet it is the most precious thing we have.
"Albert Einstein
The Skeptics Society is a scientific and educational organization of scholars, scientists, historians, magicians, professors and teachers, and anyone curious about controversial ideas, extraordinary claims, revolutionary ideas, and the promotion of science. Our mission is to serve as an educational tool for those seeking clarification and viewpoints on those controversial ideas and claims.
Under the direction of Dr. Michael Shermer, the Society engages in scientific investigation and journalistic research to investigate claims made by scientists, historians, and controversial figures on a wide range of subjects. The Society also engages in discussions with leading experts in our areas of exploration. It is our hope that our efforts go a long way in promoting critical thinking and lifelong inquisitiveness in all individuals.
I have made a ceaseless effort not to ridicule, not to bewail, not to scorn human actions, but to understand them.
"Baruch Spinoza
Some people believe that skepticism is the rejection of new ideas, or worse, they confuse “skeptic” with “cynic” and think that skeptics are a bunch of grumpy curmudgeons unwilling to accept any claim that challenges the status quo. This is wrong. Skepticism is a provisional approach to claims. It is the application of reason to any and all ideas " no sacred cows allowed. In other words, skepticism is a method, not a position. Ideally, skeptics do not go into an investigation closed to the possibility that a phenomenon might be real or that a claim might be true. When we say we are “skeptical,” we mean that we must see compelling evidence before we believe.
Skepticism has a long historical tradition dating back to ancient Greece, when Socrates observed: “All I know is that I know nothing.” But this pure position is sterile and unproductive and held by virtually no one. If you were skeptical about everything, you would have to be skeptical of your own skepticism. Like the decaying subatomic particle, pure skepticism uncoils and spins off the viewing screen of our intellectual cloud chamber.
Modern skepticism is embodied in the scientific method, which involves gathering data to formulate and test naturalistic explanations for natural phenomena. A claim becomes factual when it is confirmed to such an extent it would be reasonable to offer temporary agreement. But all facts in science are provisional and subject to challenge, and therefore skepticism is a method leading to provisional conclusions. Some claims, such as water dowsing, ESP, and creationism, have been tested (and failed the tests) often enough that we can provisionally conclude that they are not valid. Other claims, such as hypnosis, the origins of language, and black holes, have been tested but results are inconclusive so we must continue formulating and testing hypotheses and theories until we can reach a provisional conclusion.
The key to skepticism is to continuously and vigorously apply the methods of science to navigate the treacherous straits between “know nothing” skepticism and “anything goes” credulity. Over three centuries ago the French philosopher and skeptic, René Descartes, after one of the most thorough skeptical purges in intellectual history, concluded that he knew one thing for certain: Cogito ergo sum " I think therefore I am. But evolution may have designed us in the other direction. Humans evolved to be pattern-seeking, cause-inferring animals, shaped by nature to find meaningful relationships in the world. Those who were best at doing this left behind the most offspring. We are their descendents. In other words, to be human is to think:
Sum Ergo Cogito "
I Am Therefore I Think.
Jayday
Thank you (Unclejeffe, Mjosef, Logicel, ASMargues, Enlightenme..dyak, and Tumara Baap) for your thoughts about Michael Shermer.
As a Skeptic Society member, I have found Shermer to be an articulate speaker when he is speaking alone and covering a topic. He can also be a good moderator during a question and answer session for other speakers. Perhaps, even though he is an articulate guy, he is just a mediocre debater.
For those of you who don’t know him, he became an atheist after having been a born again Christian. I believe his educational back ground is in psychology. I am not sure, but I don’t think he actively performs clinical research. And, I do think he has a niche market with his books.
At the Skeptics Society meeting, I am now recalling that he has mentioned that he is a libertarian..Perhaps what I have witnessed in Shermer over the last few years, is his libertarianism meets skeptic in a very unusual time.
Down further below is a description of what a Skeptic is, written on the Skeptics Society webpage. I am now suspecting that I met Shermer during an unusual time in the history of the Skeptics Society. I was drawn to the Society with the idea to find other atheists. However, the topic of atheism is not the only topic they discuss. Religion/atheism was the hot topic of the day when I started attending their lectures. And, from what I’ve learned, those lectures are the most highly attended. With what is going on here politically in the USA, atheists like myself are yearning for an oasis of non-religious thought with others of like mind.
Perhaps Shermer’s normal mode is to be neutral on all topics AS the functioning head of the Skeptics Society. Perhaps he treats every topic as an open question until scientifically proven otherwise. You can do this with topics such as the environment and even the Holocaust. However, the “god” topic can’t be definitively proved in the same way, so there’s the rub. However, there was a whole range of books published by Dennett, Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris in the last few years, driving the topic into high gear. When high profile speakers came to the Skeptics Society to do lectures, the attendance soared. Shermer had to find larger and larger spaces to house the crowds. I now suspect that Shermer was caught up in the whirlwind of their issues and popularity. Perhaps, by association with the above authors, I wrongly assumed Shermer had some of the same goals. Is it possible that Shermer strayed away from his normal neutral mode during that time and now that the surge has passed, he is coming back to his normal neutral mode, which I witnessed during the D’ Souza debate?
Shermer is an atheist, but also as a libertarian, believing in personal free will, he truly thinks it is okay for anyone to believe what he or she want to just as long as it doesn’t interfere with his expression of free will. From this perspective, each of us is on our own.
However, I seriously doubt that lecture attendees were in the same mode of thought. Because Shermer was associating with Dawkins, Dennett and Harris as head of the Society, those of us who came in during that time assumed he would actively champion the same ideas when it came to the debate with D’ Souza. If it had been any of the three speakers above debating D’ Souza, they would have taken him on with more passion.
Shermer is in a spot. He is a bright guy. But I think I witnessed him backing out of the whirlwind. My mistake to assume he was interested in the same goals or in their league. However, in all fairness, he is somewhat responsible. Many comments he made at the lectures lead me to believe he was aligned with their ideas.
Although I understand his neutrality better now, as head of the Skeptics Society, there is still disappointment. There is a great deal at stake here in the USA and around the world. I don’t think we can just sit by and not take action when religious fundamentalists have aligned with our government and taken control of the press. It isn’t a game, and certainly not one that should be exploited.
So, I’ve learned my lesson. I am a bit wiser and more discerning. Shermer works in a different way and I will not come to expect certain things from him. In some ways he is like Teflon. You can cook on it and it’s easy to clean, but stuff just doesn’t stick.
I will continue to attend Skeptic Society lectures when the presenters are interesting but I have a revised opinion of Shermer’s role. He is the merely the host, not the main attraction.
Discover Skepticism
All our science, measured against reality, is primitive and childlike " and yet it is the most precious thing we have.
"Albert Einstein
The Skeptics Society is a scientific and educational organization of scholars, scientists, historians, magicians, professors and teachers, and anyone curious about controversial ideas, extraordinary claims, revolutionary ideas, and the promotion of science. Our mission is to serve as an educational tool for those seeking clarification and viewpoints on those controversial ideas and claims.
Under the direction of Dr. Michael Shermer, the Society engages in scientific investigation and journalistic research to investigate claims made by scientists, historians, and controversial figures on a wide range of subjects. The Society also engages in discussions with leading experts in our areas of exploration. It is our hope that our efforts go a long way in promoting critical thinking and lifelong inquisitiveness in all individuals.
I have made a ceaseless effort not to ridicule, not to bewail, not to scorn human actions, but to understand them.
"Baruch Spinoza
Some people believe that skepticism is the rejection of new ideas, or worse, they confuse “skeptic” with “cynic” and think that skeptics are a bunch of grumpy curmudgeons unwilling to accept any claim that challenges the status quo. This is wrong. Skepticism is a provisional approach to claims. It is the application of reason to any and all ideas " no sacred cows allowed. In other words, skepticism is a method, not a position. Ideally, skeptics do not go into an investigation closed to the possibility that a phenomenon might be real or that a claim might be true. When we say we are “skeptical,” we mean that we must see compelling evidence before we believe.
Skepticism has a long historical tradition dating back to ancient Greece, when Socrates observed: “All I know is that I know nothing.” But this pure position is sterile and unproductive and held by virtually no one. If you were skeptical about everything, you would have to be skeptical of your own skepticism. Like the decaying subatomic particle, pure skepticism uncoils and spins off the viewing screen of our intellectual cloud chamber.
Modern skepticism is embodied in the scientific method, which involves gathering data to formulate and test naturalistic explanations for natural phenomena. A claim becomes factual when it is confirmed to such an extent it would be reasonable to offer temporary agreement. But all facts in science are provisional and subject to challenge, and therefore skepticism is a method leading to provisional conclusions. Some claims, such as water dowsing, ESP, and creationism, have been tested (and failed the tests) often enough that we can provisionally conclude that they are not valid. Other claims, such as hypnosis, the origins of language, and black holes, have been tested but results are inconclusive so we must continue formulating and testing hypotheses and theories until we can reach a provisional conclusion.
The key to skepticism is to continuously and vigorously apply the methods of science to navigate the treacherous straits between “know nothing” skepticism and “anything goes” credulity. Over three centuries ago the French philosopher and skeptic, René Descartes, after one of the most thorough skeptical purges in intellectual history, concluded that he knew one thing for certain: Cogito ergo sum " I think therefore I am. But evolution may have designed us in the other direction. Humans evolved to be pattern-seeking, cause-inferring animals, shaped by nature to find meaningful relationships in the world. Those who were best at doing this left behind the most offspring. We are their descendents. In other words, to be human is to think:
Sum Ergo Cogito "
I Am Therefore I Think.
Thank you (Unclejeffe, Mjosef, Logicel, ASMargues, Enlightenme..dyak, and Tumara Baap) for your thoughts about Michael Shermer.
As a Skeptic Society member, I have found Shermer to be an articulate speaker when he is speaking alone and covering a topic. He can also be a good moderator during a question and answer session for other speakers. Perhaps, even though he is an articulate guy, he is just a mediocre debater.
For those of you who don’t know him, he became an atheist after having been a born again Christian. I believe his educational back ground is in psychology. I am not sure, but I don’t think he actively performs clinical research. And, I do think he has a niche market with his books.
At the Skeptics Society meeting, I am now recalling that he has mentioned that he is a libertarian..Perhaps what I have witnessed in Shermer over the last few years, is his libertarianism meets skeptic in a very unusual time.
Down further below is a description of what a Skeptic is, written on the Skeptics Society webpage. I am now suspecting that I met Shermer during an unusual time in the history of the Skeptics Society. I was drawn to the Society with the idea to find other atheists. However, the topic of atheism is not the only topic they discuss. Religion/atheism was the hot topic of the day when I started attending their lectures. And, from what I’ve learned, those lectures are the most highly attended. With what is going on here politically in the USA, atheists like myself are yearning for an oasis of non-religious thought with others of like mind.
Perhaps Shermer’s normal mode is to be neutral on all topics AS the functioning head of the Skeptics Society. Perhaps he treats every topic as an open question until scientifically proven otherwise. You can do this with topics such as the environment and even the Holocaust. However, the “god” topic can’t be definitively proved in the same way, so there’s the rub. However, there was a whole range of books published by Dennett, Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris in the last few years, driving the topic into high gear. When high profile speakers came to the Skeptics Society to do lectures, the attendance soared. Shermer had to find larger and larger spaces to house the crowds. I now suspect that Shermer was caught up in the whirlwind of their issues and popularity. Perhaps, by association with the above authors, I wrongly assumed Shermer had some of the same goals. Is it possible that Shermer strayed away from his normal neutral mode during that time and now that the surge has passed, he is coming back to his normal neutral mode, which I witnessed during the D’ Souza debate?
Shermer is an atheist, but also as a libertarian, believing in personal free will, he truly thinks it is okay for anyone to believe what he or she want to just as long as it doesn’t interfere with his expression of free will. From this perspective, each of us is on our own.
However, I seriously doubt that lecture attendees were in the same mode of thought. Because Shermer was associating with Dawkins, Dennett and Harris as head of the Society, those of us who came in during that time assumed he would actively champion the same ideas when it came to the debate with D’ Souza. If it had been any of the three speakers above debating D’ Souza, they would have taken him on with more passion.
Shermer is in a spot. He is a bright guy. But I think I witnessed him backing out of the whirlwind. My mistake to assume he was interested in the same goals or in their league. However, in all fairness, he is somewhat responsible. Many comments he made at the lectures lead me to believe he was aligned with their ideas.
Although I understand his neutrality better now, as head of the Skeptics Society, there is still disappointment. There is a great deal at stake here in the USA and around the world. I don’t think we can just sit by and not take action when religious fundamentalists have aligned with our government and taken control of the press. It isn’t a game, and certainly not one that should be exploited.
So, I’ve learned my lesson. I am a bit wiser and more discerning. Shermer works in a different way and I will not come to expect certain things from him. In some ways he is like Teflon. You can cook on it and it’s easy to clean, but stuff just doesn’t stick.
I will continue to attend Skeptic Society lectures when the presenters are interesting but I have a revised opinion of Shermer’s role. He is the merely the host, not the main attraction.
Discover Skepticism
All our science, measured against reality, is primitive and childlike " and yet it is the most precious thing we have.
"Albert Einstein
The Skeptics Society is a scientific and educational organization of scholars, scientists, historians, magicians, professors and teachers, and anyone curious about controversial ideas, extraordinary claims, revolutionary ideas, and the promotion of science. Our mission is to serve as an educational tool for those seeking clarification and viewpoints on those controversial ideas and claims.
Under the direction of Dr. Michael Shermer, the Society engages in scientific investigation and journalistic research to investigate claims made by scientists, historians, and controversial figures on a wide range of subjects. The Society also engages in discussions with leading experts in our areas of exploration. It is our hope that our efforts go a long way in promoting critical thinking and lifelong inquisitiveness in all individuals.
I have made a ceaseless effort not to ridicule, not to bewail, not to scorn human actions, but to understand them.
"Baruch Spinoza
Some people believe that skepticism is the rejection of new ideas, or worse, they confuse “skeptic” with “cynic” and think that skeptics are a bunch of grumpy curmudgeons unwilling to accept any claim that challenges the status quo. This is wrong. Skepticism is a provisional approach to claims. It is the application of reason to any and all ideas " no sacred cows allowed. In other words, skepticism is a method, not a position. Ideally, skeptics do not go into an investigation closed to the possibility that a phenomenon might be real or that a claim might be true. When we say we are “skeptical,” we mean that we must see compelling evidence before we believe.
Skepticism has a long historical tradition dating back to ancient Greece, when Socrates observed: “All I know is that I know nothing.” But this pure position is sterile and unproductive and held by virtually no one. If you were skeptical about everything, you would have to be skeptical of your own skepticism. Like the decaying subatomic particle, pure skepticism uncoils and spins off the viewing screen of our intellectual cloud chamber.
Modern skepticism is embodied in the scientific method, which involves gathering data to formulate and test naturalistic explanations for natural phenomena. A claim becomes factual when it is confirmed to such an extent it would be reasonable to offer temporary agreement. But all facts in science are provisional and subject to challenge, and therefore skepticism is a method leading to provisional conclusions. Some claims, such as water dowsing, ESP, and creationism, have been tested (and failed the tests) often enough that we can provisionally conclude that they are not valid. Other claims, such as hypnosis, the origins of language, and black holes, have been tested but results are inconclusive so we must continue formulating and testing hypotheses and theories until we can reach a provisional conclusion.
The key to skepticism is to continuously and vigorously apply the methods of science to navigate the treacherous straits between “know nothing” skepticism and “anything goes” credulity. Over three centuries ago the French philosopher and skeptic, René Descartes, after one of the most thorough skeptical purges in intellectual history, concluded that he knew one thing for certain: Cogito ergo sum " I think therefore I am. But evolution may have designed us in the other direction. Humans evolved to be pattern-seeking, cause-inferring animals, shaped by nature to find meaningful relationships in the world. Those who were best at doing this left behind the most offspring. We are their descendents. In other words, to be human is to think:
Sum Ergo Cogito "
I Am Therefore I Think.
Thank you (Unclejeffe, Mjosef, Logicel, ASMargues, Enlightenme..dyak, and Tumara Baap) for your thoughts about Michael Shermer.
As a Skeptic Society member, I have found Shermer to be an articulate speaker when he is speaking alone and covering a topic. He can also be a good moderator during a question and answer session for other speakers. Perhaps, even though he is an articulate guy, he is just a mediocre debater.
For those of you who don’t know him, he became an atheist after having been a born again Christian. I believe his educational back ground is in psychology. I am not sure, but I don’t think he actively performs clinical research. And, I do think he has a niche market with his books.
At the Skeptics Society meeting, I am now recalling that he has mentioned that he is a libertarian..Perhaps what I have witnessed in Shermer over the last few years, is his libertarianism meets skeptic in a very unusual time.
Down further below is a description of what a Skeptic is, written on the Skeptics Society webpage. I am now suspecting that I met Shermer during an unusual time in the history of the Skeptics Society. I was drawn to the Society with the idea to find other atheists. However, the topic of atheism is not the only topic they discuss. Religion/atheism was the hot topic of the day when I started attending their lectures. And, from what I’ve learned, those lectures are the most highly attended. With what is going on here politically in the USA, atheists like myself are yearning for an oasis of non-religious thought with others of like mind.
Perhaps Shermer’s normal mode is to be neutral on all topics AS the functioning head of the Skeptics Society. Perhaps he treats every topic as an open question until scientifically proven otherwise. You can do this with topics such as the environment and even the Holocaust. However, the “god” topic can’t be definitively proved in the same way, so there’s the rub. However, there was a whole range of books published by Dennett, Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris in the last few years, driving the topic into high gear. When high profile speakers came to the Skeptics Society to do lectures, the attendance soared. Shermer had to find larger and larger spaces to house the crowds. I now suspect that Shermer was caught up in the whirlwind of their issues and popularity. Perhaps, by association with the above authors, I wrongly assumed Shermer had some of the same goals. Is it possible that Shermer strayed away from his normal neutral mode during that time and now that the surge has passed, he is coming back to his normal neutral mode, which I witnessed during the D’ Souza debate?
Shermer is an atheist, but also as a libertarian, believing in personal free will, he truly thinks it is okay for anyone to believe what he or she want to just as long as it doesn’t interfere with his expression of free will. From this perspective, each of us is on our own.
However, I seriously doubt that lecture attendees were in the same mode of thought. Because Shermer was associating with Dawkins, Dennett and Harris as head of the Society, those of us who came in during that time assumed he would actively champion the same ideas when it came to the debate with D’ Souza. If it had been any of the three speakers above debating D’ Souza, they would have taken him on with more passion.
Shermer is in a spot. He is a bright guy. But I think I witnessed him backing out of the whirlwind. My mistake to assume he was interested in the same goals or in their league. However, in all fairness, he is somewhat responsible. Many comments he made at the lectures lead me to believe he was aligned with their ideas.
Although I understand his neutrality better now, as head of the Skeptics Society, there is still disappointment. There is a great deal at stake here in the USA and around the world. I don’t think we can just sit by and not take action when religious fundamentalists have aligned with our government and taken control of the press. It isn’t a game, and certainly not one that should be exploited.
So, I’ve learned my lesson. I am a bit wiser and more discerning. Shermer works in a different way and I will not come to expect certain things from him. In some ways he is like Teflon. You can cook on it and it’s easy to clean, but stuff just doesn’t stick.
I will continue to attend Skeptic Society lectures when the presenters are interesting but I have a revised opinion of Shermer’s role. He is the merely the host, not the main attraction.
Discover Skepticism
All our science, measured against reality, is primitive and childlike " and yet it is the most precious thing we have.
"Albert Einstein
The Skeptics Society is a scientific and educational organization of scholars, scientists, historians, magicians, professors and teachers, and anyone curious about controversial ideas, extraordinary claims, revolutionary ideas, and the promotion of science. Our mission is to serve as an educational tool for those seeking clarification and viewpoints on those controversial ideas and claims.
Under the direction of Dr. Michael Shermer, the Society engages in scientific investigation and journalistic research to investigate claims made by scientists, historians, and controversial figures on a wide range of subjects. The Society also engages in discussions with leading experts in our areas of exploration. It is our hope that our efforts go a long way in promoting critical thinking and lifelong inquisitiveness in all individuals.
I have made a ceaseless effort not to ridicule, not to bewail, not to scorn human actions, but to understand them.
"Baruch Spinoza
Some people believe that skepticism is the rejection of new ideas, or worse, they confuse “skeptic” with “cynic” and think that skeptics are a bunch of grumpy curmudgeons unwilling to accept any claim that challenges the status quo. This is wrong. Skepticism is a provisional approach to claims. It is the application of reason to any and all ideas " no sacred cows allowed. In other words, skepticism is a method, not a position. Ideally, skeptics do not go into an investigation closed to the possibility that a phenomenon might be real or that a claim might be true. When we say we are “skeptical,” we mean that we must see compelling evidence before we believe.
Skepticism has a long historical tradition dating back to ancient Greece, when Socrates observed: “All I know is that I know nothing.” But this pure position is sterile and unproductive and held by virtually no one. If you were skeptical about everything, you would have to be skeptical of your own skepticism. Like the decaying subatomic particle, pure skepticism uncoils and spins off the viewing screen of our intellectual cloud chamber.
Modern skepticism is embodied in the scientific method, which involves gathering data to formulate and test naturalistic explanations for natural phenomena. A claim becomes factual when it is confirmed to such an extent it would be reasonable to offer temporary agreement. But all facts in science are provisional and subject to challenge, and therefore skepticism is a method leading to provisional conclusions. Some claims, such as water dowsing, ESP, and creationism, have been tested (and failed the tests) often enough that we can provisionally conclude that they are not valid. Other claims, such as hypnosis, the origins of language, and black holes, have been tested but results are inconclusive so we must continue formulating and testing hypotheses and theories until we can reach a provisional conclusion.
The key to skepticism is to continuously and vigorously apply the methods of science to navigate the treacherous straits between “know nothing” skepticism and “anything goes” credulity. Over three centuries ago the French philosopher and skeptic, René Descartes, after one of the most thorough skeptical purges in intellectual history, concluded that he knew one thing for certain: Cogito ergo sum " I think therefore I am. But evolution may have designed us in the other direction. Humans evolved to be pattern-seeking, cause-inferring animals, shaped by nature to find meaningful relationships in the world. Those who were best at doing this left behind the most offspring. We are their descendents. In other words, to be human is to think:
Sum Ergo Cogito "
I Am Therefore I Think.
6. Yoko Ono, Filmmakers Caught in 'Expelled' Flap
Comment #164262 by Jayday on April 19, 2008 at 10:11 pm
Response to: Comment #164173 by Russell Blackford
I am not a legal expert, and perhaps you are. The point I wanted to make is that IF Lennon’s song was used illegally, that Ono shouldn’t make a decision based on fear of what others think. As I said before, she is in a no win situation no matter what she does. She will offend or disappoint one side or the other. In the end, it becomes all about protecting Lennon’s work and his legacy.
We fight the fights we must and can. There are so few opportunities to be able to publicly stand up and expose the theist deceit and propaganda for what it is. If Ono does sue, she should of course be smart and strategic about it. IF there are grounds for legal action, I feel strongly that retreat isn’t in the best interest of John Lennon’s legacy. (personal opinion). What would a retreat accomplish? Theists who are advancing their views and causes aren’t retreating. Should we just let them continue to advance without meeting any resistance? We have done that for along time now here in the USA, and look were we are. Such a mess.
Response to: Comment #164183 by AllanW
Allan, I am inspired by Richard Dawkins when he says that he thinks we are fast approaching a tipping point in the movement of atheists coming out. I like his optimism. I hope he is right. He certainly meets many more atheists on his book tour than I ever do in my day-to-day life. I know very few professed atheists. However, I live in a hotbed of religious fundamentalists, which is quite oppressive. For the time being, I have not personally experienced the wave of change Dawkins talks about, and I agree with you that we should take any opportunity we can to raise awareness and be proactive. When appropriate, legal action should be used.
Jayday
7. Interviews with Richard Dawkins and Michael Shermer
Comment #164144 by Jayday on April 19, 2008 at 4:00 pm
Richard Dawkins was once again articulate and clear. Always a breath of fresh air. Dawkins saying that he is encouraged by letters and those he meets on his tour was quite gracious. Layla, you are indeed a courageous person for questioning your beliefs and making a decision to go in a different direction that you know is right for you. I am so happy that Professor Dawkins mentioned your letter. Best wishes to you! You are not alone.
I've got to say that once again I am baffled by Michael Shermer's response. I am still trying to figure him out and trying to understand what he really thinks. He came off so la-ti dah about being contacted to do the movie interview and then behaves like it is okay to be used dishonestly by the film producer. He side stepped questions about it and made it sound like it is okay to be manipulated. Like it is just a game. So much so that he gets invited warmly to religious conferences. I got the impression it is a strategic game to him. I am not sure what his ultimate goal is. Richard Dawkins is direct and you know what he thinks from his writings, interviews, and actions. Dawkins is consistent.Shermer writes one way and talks and behaves another. I am having a hard time trusting his motives. Let me explain where this is coming from…
I am a member of the Skeptics Society and attend lectures in Pasadena where Shermer presides over the events. He has hosted Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and Sam Harris among others, in the lecture series. I have read some of Shermer's books and thought I understood his views about religion and science. He is a bright guy. Then I attended his debate about religion with Dinesh D'Souza, which really made me question Shermer's motives. It was a sold out crowd of a few thousand at Cal Tech. To my surprise, most of the attendees were theists instead of the atheists I was use to seeing at previous events. The Skeptics Society lectures and events are the few places where we can actually meet other atheists and share out views and experiences. It makes sense. After all, I don't go to church to find fellow atheists. Anyway, D'Souza obviously had a big following that day. Then I thought, this could be good. Theists will get to hear Michael Shermer who I knew to be an intelligent speaker, presenting and being exposed to different views than their own.
During the debate, I was shocked to find that Shermer was so non-chalant in his position against D'Souza's religious claims. It was like Shermer had turned into someone else. I had been listening to him at the Skeptics Society lectures for a year. And, all of a sudden, I didn't know the person who was on that debate stage.
I know Shermer is a bright man who knows the topic and is a good speaker. He knows how to debate. However, in the D'Souza debate setting, he held back to the point that HE ALLOWED D'Souza to walk all over him. It felt like a boxing match that had been rigged. It was OBVIOUS that he wasn't even trying to clarify some really important points that the theists in the room could have heard. It was like he really didn't care. It was a grand opportunity for theists to hear another viewpoint that they certainly wouldn't get in their churches and in the religious books they read. Shermer really dropped the ball, and it seemed to be on purpose. He joked about the fact the he and D'Souza were good friends and that they would be going out for drinks afterwards. Okay fine, I have theist friends too. But this was a public forum, a debate of opposing ideas, not a chat between friends. Right or wrong, on some level I felt betrayed by Shermer. Was it my mistake in assuming he would defend the opposing position? Was I expecting too much? Mr. Skeptic wasn't being a skeptic. He was being mister wishy washy. Why, I still don't know. It was all so foolish.
Either I was very much mistaken and disillusioned about him when I first joined the Skeptics Society, or he has really back peddled and distanced himself from the more mainstream atheist proponents. It is like he is riding the fence. Doesn't want to offend anyone. Doesn't want to be associated with any particular ideas. His mind seems to be so open, that he doesn't take a stance in public. Unless his stance, is "anything goes" which doesn't make sense to what he writes about. He writes one way and now talks another. I believe he has changed. Or at least he has changed his public discourse in the last year.
I am not impressed with his portion of the podcast.
Has anyone else been to the Skeptics Society lectures with Shermer and seen a shift in his public behavior? I am open to others perspectives. It is really baffling to me.
Jayday
8. Yoko Ono, Filmmakers Caught in 'Expelled' Flap
Comment #163936 by Jayday on April 19, 2008 at 10:06 am
There seems to be a thread of ideas here that some of the blog contributors think that the film producers were simply exercising their right of free speech to use John Lennon's "Imagine." And that Yoko Ono shouldn't sue for the use without permission because it will underline the perceptions of John or Yoko as being "against" religion. That speaking out against the film producers in this manner will reinforce the public's negative perception of Lennon and Ono, as well as atheists by association to the other controversies involving Shermer, Dawkins, Eugenie Scott and P.Z. Myers participation in the film.
Free speech in the USA doesn't mean anything goes. There are limitations whether you agree with them or not. Defamation is not free speech, it is illegal.
Those of us who support the work of Richard Dawkins get irritated when anyone takes his words and ideas and twist them to mean something totally false. Sure, there are plenty of people out there with opposing opinions. That's fine. But when they report Dawkins has said or done something that is completely untrue. It is total fabrication. Some is done out of pure ignorance and some is done with the intention of malice.
As a public figure, Dawkins has a large group of vocal opponents. Have any crossed the line of disagreement and personal opinion and waded into something illegal? Some probably. Should he realistically go after every one legally? That is up to him to determine the "intent" and "damage" done, and weigh the costs of energy, time, and money to put into the effort. Most public figures are targets who must realistically "pick their battles."
As for Yoko Ono. It is clear that several people on this blog do not like her personally and have a pre-conceived opinion about her that don't have anything to do with the issue at hand. There is nothing that she could do that would be correct in the eyes of some here. So, let's get past those notions and take a look at what THE ISSUES ARE. Forget for a moment that Yoko Ono is the executor of John Lennon's artistic legacy and estate. What if it was his son Sean Lennon who was suing? Would you feel differently?
The ISSUES are, copyright infringement and defamation.
Ms. Ono will ultimately have to consult a lawyer to determine if anything was done illegally. If there is a viable case, then she has the right to sue should she choose to.
On a business level, it is possible that someone has used a copyrighted piece of work without permission. Copyright infringement is "Theft." On another level, John Lennon's song "Imagine" was written as a peace anthem. What would John do if he were alive today? No one knows for sure. However, John Lennon was continually outspoken about his ideas about peace and social issues. Given his past pattern of behavior, it is "probable" that he wouldn't like his work associated with this film's message. Will the use of his music in this film cause damage to him? Not literally of course. However, it could to his legacy. Will a new generation of young people who see the film now associate John Lennon's "Imagine" with the message in this film? Will they erroneously be led to believe that John Lennon supported the perspective and ideas laid out in the film thereby hijacking, distorting, and potentially destroying Lennon's legacy in the process?
Professor Dawkins doesn't mince words when talking about religious belief. He is very direct and says what he means without apology. You either love or hate his approach, but there it is. Some people criticize his approach, saying that his style of presentation just underlines the perception by theists, that he is dogmatic, adversarial, and that he is a "fundamental atheist." Richard Dawkins doesn't back off from saying what he thinks because of other people's perceptions. He is saying what he thinks to be true, based on evidence. He doesn't pander to theists.
For those of you who think that Yoko Ono shouldn't sue, because it would stir up negativity around her, John Lennon, and atheists in the film, you are essentially saying that she should back away from the truth because of the potential fallout created by what other people believe or think.
As I see it…it is a no win situation for Yoko Ono in the eyes of the public. Those who think the film producers should be held accountable will applaud her actions to sue, but she will disappoint those who fear possible public backlash as mentioned above. If Ono does nothing, those who think she should sue the producers will be frustrated by her inaction. This may be viewed by some that she approves the film's message, or doesn't care to protect John Lennon's legacy. There is no pleasing everybody.
If Yoko Ono does have a legal case and should choose to sue the film producers on grounds of copyright infringement and/or defamation it is likely to be based on what SHE thinks and feels is the right thing to do to protect John Lennon's work and legacy. Not because she will be concerned about pleasing any particular group any more than Dawkins would on his respective topic.
Freedom of speech has its costs.
Jayday
9. In Britain, creationist theory is evolving
Comment #144989 by Jayday on March 17, 2008 at 6:28 am
This story really is a wake up call not to become complacent or to assume that the British public school curriculum is going to remain free of creationism. As an American, I once thought that our Constitution would protect our children on that front because of separation of church and state. With the current US president and congress and a very vocal and organized fundamentalist group of christians, the US Constitution is being eroded on that front. The American media is helping this along. Perception is important to the masses. It is like living in a crazy nightmare.
I would encourage those of you who are living in Britain to fight back when you can. Write the media, elected officials and any organization that needs to hear your objection. I highly praise this website and Richard Dawkins for making this topic visible here in America.
Please don't take it for granted that topic of evolution won't be challenged by those who want to push creationism. Once they get a strong foothold it is much more difficult to deal with the situation. Protect your children.
10. Stop revisionist Christian nation House Resolution 888
Comment #114267 by Jayday on January 21, 2008 at 5:05 pm
Summer Seale,
Ha Ha Ha! Yeeeeehaaaa!
We are not the clueless, pacifist, gutless, namby pamby, wishy washy, "flower children" picture you are trying so hard to impose on us because we don't agree with your "might is right" "shoot em' up" version of foreign policy and relations. Sorry, can't let that go by.
I agree with Highwayman429 here.
"A strength of a people lies not in what it can destroy, but what it can achieve and how it achieves it. Hate is a waster of time and energy. "
and also with Florhear..
We should make sure to practice the rational thought and cogent argument we claim to cherish.
Several questions Summer Seale,
1. Do you think Saddam had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks? If so, what is the evidence?
2. Do you think that attacking any chosen middle eastern country is justification in and of itself to be used as a deterrent to the rest of the Muslim world not to "mess with the USA?" Doesn't matter if they weren't the one's who actually attacked us.Preemptive strike is okay? Whoa Zeus, I feel your thunderbolts!
3. Do you think our military should go after Bin Laden and the terrorist cells that were actually responsible for the 9/11 attacks? If not, why not?
4. What is your position on the following:
a. How is (Bush's) lying and manipulating the public by using fear tactics, shame and coersion (if you are not with us you are against us and therefore unpatriotic, Godless and gutless), to get the public to believe and do what he wants, to serve his own agenda, any different ethically and morally than teaching children to believe in a supernatural being that can reward and punish them if they don't believe?
b. Is it okay to teach our children that lying and manipulation is acceptable behavior in society?
c. What are your thoughts about "informed choice" as being the foundation of Democracy and a free society?
Jayday
11. Stop revisionist Christian nation House Resolution 888
Comment #114201 by Jayday on January 21, 2008 at 2:22 pm
Summer Seale,
Wow!
I am very angry at what has gone on in the world too, but apparently not in the same way you are. I am an atheist who would welcome a world without religion... to be without the strife and misery it can bring. But, I do not see ALL Muslims as horrible people any more than I would think EVERY Christian is horrible. I haven't ceased to see people who are Muslims or Christians as human beings. I do not wish bodily harm to those people who have not attacked us. I am not a pacifist by any stretch. Sometimes war is necessary. War isn't pretty, people get maimed and killed. It is a tough road to keep your eye on the ball when your world has been torn apart and your freedoms shakened.
What makes this "terrorist" conflict so tough, is that there isn't a clearly defined enemy. I can't foresee anything positive about killing off every Muslim in the world as retribution to show the MIGHT of the USA. It only drags us down to the level of the terrorists. If you want to "Win" that badly, I dare say, you have to be willing to fight a world war and possibly inherit a toxic and destroyed planet.
I just happen to think there are a variety of ways to settle disputes and conflicts. War is only one way, and violence is never my first choice
Jayday
Jayday
12. Stop revisionist Christian nation House Resolution 888
Comment #114161 by Jayday on January 21, 2008 at 1:16 pm
Lycocid We are patriots and have no plans to leave the USA. We have been voting, joined political action groups, and avidly writing our representatives, but we are sadly STILL saddled with moving into "the dark ages." The tide is heavy.
(Sorry for the weird layout of each paragraph. It is the way my program copied into this blog.)
Summer seal and thirdchipanzee: Interesting dialogue.
Summer seal,
No doubt that at different times in the past 10 years that the US and many other
countries thought Saddam has WMD. I think it would be important to identify
exactly the type of weapons referred to at any given time in that overall
timeline. Biological, nuclear, rockets, and which fit into the timeline?
Remember back that the UN Inspectors couldn't find any WMDs and that there was
evidence prior to the invasion in Iraq that any programs had been dismantled.
Political leaders "Posture" all the time. I doubt Bush actually made the
decision to attack Iraq "because" Saddam said he had WMDs. The North Vietnamese
said they have a nuclear program, and there is actual evidence that it is such.
There was big posturing going on, but Bush didn't attack them. Their leader
kills Vietnamese citizens brutally, as Saddam did the Kurds. He is a bad guy
too. So, why did Bush choose Saddam over North Vietnam to attack? It is clear
that Bush disregarded intelligence information just prior to the attack on Iraq
and went ahead with the attack anyway. In fact, there is evidence to support
that Bush had plans to go after Saddam prior to 9/11. Bush had other motives for the attack that had nothing to do with WMD, one was to gain control of oil
production. If you recall, Afganistan was strategic because Bush/Cheney wanted
to build an oil pipeline through it. Bush didn't manage to get Bin Laden, he
even later said it was of no consequence! And, the Taliban are making a
comeback. Saddam was a bad guy and I am glad he is gone, however he could have
been "contained" in other ways than blowing the entire country of Iraq apart and
killing thousands of innocent people.
I supported Bush's decision to go to Afghanistan, thinking he was going after
Bin Laden who masterminded the 9/11 attacks. This was the correct response to
the attacks on the US. Anything else was totally senseless. It would be like
the Germans deciding to attack the British because the Finnish had bombed
Munich! Totally without sense and reason. But Bush lied about his motives and
didn't do what he said he would do. Betrayal would be the accurate word.
As for "moving on" about it (WMD). That is just what Bush would want isn't it?
Let's just forget the blunder and lie that was used to sell getting us into
Iraq. Let's confuse the public with disinformation. It is a way to re-write
history, WHICH IS THE IDEA AT THE CENTER OF THIS ARTICLE HERE, and why I am
passionate about responding. I am interested in the truth. It isn't a matter of
"liking" it or not. Bush's attack of Iraq became a turning point in US history
and maybe even the world. Preemptive strike policy. Not likely I will forget
that. I am ashamed of him and the leadership he represents. Saddam was a bad man
but he DID NOT mastermind the 9/11 attacks. Bush and Cheney have tried to
re-write history about this fact many many times in the press, and I won't let
it go. JUST AS THIS HR888 IS TRYING TO BUILD A WEDGE, A PATHWAY TO RE-WRITE
HISTORY IN TERMS OF THE RELATIONSHIP OF CHURCH AND STATE HERE IN AMERICA. I
hope we don't forget the terrible mistake this country has made in the middle
east. Remember, and learn not to repeat it.
As for revealing the identity of the CIA agent. Armitage was only one leak,
there were several And, no one is sure who orchestrated it. Cheney refused to
cooperate and the investigators in the Scooter Libby trial didn't get far
because so many were lying. Libby was the only one they could get proof about
objectively. Libby got convicted but his friend Bush got him out of jail time if
I recall. How convenient.
I can't comment about waterboarding practices other than to say that it serves
this administration's goals to use barbaric behavior. Absolute power corrupts
absolutely. They believe they are above reproach. After all, "God" is on their
side. Remember, George believes he has a line to God about this "crusade." Those
imprisoned in Guantanamo just point to the fact that the "terrorists" are not an
identified army from an identified country we are at war with. George Bush
rallies the country behind the banner of his crusade for the "War on Terror."
There IS no "War on Terror," Terror is a psychological mindset. It isn't a war
with a defined country and army. Bush has managed to highjack the term, use
"fear" tactics to manipulate the American public, and he uses the press to do
so. He reaps confusion, and it sells well in the news. Yes we were brutally
attacked, but not by a particular country. Bush hasn't managed to get Bin Laden
and doesn't seem to care about going after who masterminded the 9/11 attacks.
Bush has not focused our military on dismantling the terrorist cells. He has
diffused our military resources, stirred more conflict ,and inspired more people
to join in the terrorist activities, and made his friends very wealthy in the
process. War makes money for those in the position to gain profit for the goods
and services needed to support it. No, I don't like it. He lies, and can't be
trusted. Look at his actions, not his words. Not one shred of integrity.
Delusional, or just crazy like a fox?
You are quite correct in that there has been a slim Democratic lead in our
congress since 2006. And we still haven't been able to change the course of this
ship. This had added to my GREAT frustration with elected officials. I continue
to write them to communicate my disagreement about it. I am not defending
either party here. The Democrats are not doing much better than their
congressional predecessors. There are many theories about why this is so:
1. A tactic to gain control of the Whitehouse and a larger margin of control in
congress in 2008. Let the Republicans hang themselves in the up coming election.
2. The Democrats are afraid of even opening a serious investigation into
impeachment because they are afraid that the public will think they are "flip
floppers" and "unpatriotic" that would lead to "not supporting the troups."
They are fearful of backlash. Part of this ties in with religious belief and not
being on "God's" side. If you don't believe in God, you don't have good
"values." Remember, the Bush media machine is very good at stirring up
emotions. Combining patriotism with "God's army." A strong emotional message
that lacks reasonable thinking. A way to rally the country behind them. I find
this frightening and insulting.
George Lakoff has written two interesting books about how the Democrats and
Republicans define their values from very different perspectives. According to
Lakoff, the Republican view is strongly based on the "Father Figure," and
modeled from the Abrahamic faiths. Interesting reads from Lakoff: "Thinking
Points: Communicating Our American Values and Vision" and "Don't think of An
Elephant: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate." Lakoff's point is that the
Republican think tanks have consciously highjacked the language and "reframed"
the original meaning and public discourse about liberal and progressive values
using metaphors that tap into the way we associate ideas and concepts that are
emotionally charged.
3. The Democratic leaders are just as corrupt and in the pockets of special
interest lobbyists as those across the political aisle. Corruption is an ugly
reality. No party is immune.
4.The Democrats have been handed a huge mess, that no one knows how to get out
of easily or cleanly. The fact is, there is no way to "save face." Bush has made
a humongous mess that will affect world relations for decades. Who ever manages
to win in 2008 is going to have their hands full of s**it no matter what because
of Bush's actions.
And finally, Bush is even a poor Christian. He courts the formidable religious
right that helped him get into office, holds a prayer meeting with his staff
each morning to pray for guidance before starting work, and then proceeds to
develop policies that end in property destruction, maiming, and death of
thousands of innocent people while filling the pockets of his buddies. The
ultimate wallow in hypocrisy. Whatever happen to "the golden rule,' or Jesus'
throwing the money changers out of the temple? Oh my my.....sigh
It is critical for the future of our country and its impact on the world, to
maintain a clear line between church and state. Stop the forward march to build
a permanent theocracy that we appear to be headed for.
Jayday
13. Stop revisionist Christian nation House Resolution 888
Comment #113858 by Jayday on January 20, 2008 at 7:33 pm
Radesq thanks for the information.
Soul_biscuit, I hope you are right and it doesn't pass. However, Since Bush took office, I am constantly astounded at what gets passed in the USA. I don't take anything for granted anymore. Logic, reason, and the rule of law seem to have flown. Americans seem to have lost their sense of "reality." As an American, I sometimes feel I am living in a nightmare that I am REALLY hoping to wake up from soon. My husband and I talk frequently about moving out of the country as we don't recognize it anymore. Sigh.........
This is a time to take action and make our voices heard, not to assume that the Constitution will stand on its own. Those in power have proven that they will subvert it whenever they can. The Bush administration has already crossed that line in so many areas. When the courts and media are stacked to promote a very conservative ideal that includes embracing religion, it is tough to get a secular view expressed without being branded as unpatriotic. It is pathetic and frightening. We are in real trouble with the way the Supreme Court is stacked.
What amazes me is that the American public doesn't seem to have the stomach for impeachment this time for real crimes that affect the safety of our nation and personal freedoms. I think Bush and his cronies will get away with as much as they can before he leaves office. We have been blown back to the "dark ages."
Jayday
14. Huckabee Wants A 'Faith-based' Constitution
Comment #111970 by Jayday on January 16, 2008 at 5:39 am
Although Huckabee is indeed disturbing, the Commondreams website posted an article about the USA House Resolution (888), which is a move to create an American History of Religion Week that is to be taught in public schools. The article was posted on
1-15-08. "Congress Aims to Dumb Down History, Pushes Fiction of Christian Nation in Public Schools." It is possible that this resolution will be voted on as soon as this week. If you are an American who disagrees with this action, it would be wise to contact your representative as soon as possible to register your view.
Jayday
15. 'Letter to a Christian Nation' now available in paperback
Comment #111605 by Jayday on January 15, 2008 at 6:14 am
So glad this little book with a big message is available in paperback. It is also available in audio format. For those of us who commute an hour to and from work by car, this is a wonderful format. I've been fortunate enough to be able to listen to this book as well as The End of Faith and The God Delusion (more than once).
I have to admit, they all have a calming effect. Listening to voices of reason and clarity. So refreshing!
Jayday
16. George Scales, War Hero and Generous Friend of RDFRS
Comment #111475 by Jayday on January 14, 2008 at 5:58 pm
Dear George,
You inspire the rest of us to be courageous in our thoughts and deeds. Thank you for all that you do! Best wishes for a smooth surgery and easy recovery.
Sincerely
Jayday
Comment #110428 by Jayday on January 11, 2008 at 6:32 am
The "Evolutionists at War over Altruism's Origin" article was reprinted on the Commondreams.org website
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/01/10/6297/
The blog comments are great. Care to get into the debate with others who don't normally join the Dawkin's website?
Jayday
18. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?
Comment #105301 by Jayday on December 31, 2007 at 7:34 am
Steve Zara Said:
"My concern is that Dennett is attempting to describe the way that creative thoughts arise, and develop in individuals and cultures, in a Darwinian way. My view is that there are many ways that such thoughts can arise and develop that are not Darwinian, but entirely naturalistic. "
Steve, can you explain what you mean by "naturalistic?" From my perspective in my post #39, Darwinian is naturalistic. That there is nothing outside of evolution. Perhaps I am not understanding what you mean by naturalistic.
19. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?
Comment #105007 by Jayday on December 30, 2007 at 10:22 am
Wow, this is truly one of the best, thought provoking articles published on the web site! Dennett always makes us stretch. I always welcome the reach.
I've particularly enjoyed Steve Zara and Phil Rimmer's discussion. I am not an expert on computer processing and brain function. But I want to throw this into the pot.
I came to recognize myself as an atheist through the work of Daniel Dennett. Dennett and then Dawkins lead me to fully appreciating the significance of Darwin. For me the peak or pivotal "connection" was fully realizing the significance and ramifications of the fact that, as an undisputed part of the universe, the human mind and cognitive behaviors are generated within the same universe or "system." How we generate thoughts, emotions, and perceptions of reality is not "outside" the natural process of physical and therefore psychological evolution. There is nothing supernatural, nothing outside the natural world. The brain generates the mind. The brain was formed and continues to form via evolution.
The question: Is there anything or any other "system" other than Darwinian? When you are discussing whether you think something should or should not be attributed to Darwin, is that even possible? If the basis of life processes is Darwinian (evolution by natural selection), is there anything underlying that? Is there any other type of natural crane?
I am going to paraphrase something written by Matt Ridley. Ridley had been discussing human evolution and our branching off from previous species.
Ridley asks that if evolution generates new species by mechanisms that are in part random (meaning that the mechanisms are blind, lack intention etc. as Dawkin's puts it), should human existence be ascribed just to a long sequence of random events? Charles Darwin answered this question in his book the "Descent of Man." He said, yes, but with a reservation. Darwin said, "Man has risen to the summit of the organic scale though not through his own exertion, yet some pride in the result would be excusable." One might ask, why so, if no human exertion was involved? Darwin went on to explain that man's powers of sympathy, benevolence, and intellect is what made the difference. Though evolution through natural selection depends in part by "blind" processes, it is shaped by the environment in which each species struggles to survive. And, for social species like ours, one of the most important features of the environment, is our own cultural society. So to the extent that people have shaped their own cultural society, they have in part determined the conditions of their own evolution. The full nature of this interaction between culture and evolution is not yet clear.
Ultimately, I can't separate evolution from culture anymore than I can separate the mind from the brain when I consider at base that it all springs from a single process. Complex yes, but separate? I can't see anything outside of the natural system defined by Darwin. Anyone else have other ideas about this? I am open to other non-religious ideas and perspectives.
I am grateful that Dennett via his study of consciousness is making strides to ask questions, open the way to make bridges between the brain and what the brain generates...the mind...and what the mind generates...culture.
20. Bible bashing dying out in Kansas
Comment #102592 by Jayday on December 23, 2007 at 9:20 am
As an American, I don't feel as optimistic about a growing tolerance for gay rights, or that there is a massive retreat of the hell fire brand of religion here in the USA. Also, It is very hard to detect what the public's response will be at the voting booths in 2008. The fundamentalists are well organized politically. They have powerful connections with government. Every candidate is aware of their power. It is embarrassing to watch the candidates fall over them to get their votes. It would be political suicide not to be aware of their power. But it is still an ugly sight.
Although we pride ourselves as having free speech, in the USA free speech, the "message" is in the hands of powerful media conglomerates who can push whatever agenda they wish to. The idea of the "liberal press" is a joke. We are in a crisis of living in one of the most corrupt times since the inceptions of the USA. The government, the press, and the legal system have all been systematically taken over by right wing ultra conservative influences. And, to our dismay, the Democrats, who were once the champions of more progressive ideas, have laid down on the mat. They don't appear to have the spine or intelligence to fight the tide. They are a part of the corruption.
With the main stream press becoming more like FOX news, it is tough to really determine what will happen in the elections because we have no true sense of what the general public is thinking. So much of our news is slanted to the conservative right. So much more religious based programming is being introduced in media markets where we've never seen it before. It is common to see several Christian stations in North Carolina, but until the last few years, it was very unusual to see them in Southern California. Religious oriented programs in Southern California have begun to catch up to those found in the south. And, to play to the religious, even the National Geographic or Discovery Channels who at one time produced programs more about history, culture, science, and technology, are now offering religious topic programs like "In search of the arc" or some story related to Jesus. Religious topics are being passed off as history. In my mind, it is like giving Intelligent Design the same weight as Evolution. Most people probably don't see this. It is quite insidious.
I am happy to see that the "Pastor Phelps" brand of ministers are being marginalized. Let them all implode...But, we still have the Rick Warrens who may not be as openly intolerant, but are commanding just as much power in influencing their huge flock to Christianity. Warren's church has thousands of members. His book "A purpose Driven Life" has produced mega sales that have provided mega funds to build a much bigger worship center than he already has. The expansion is astounding.
There is a change in the zeitgeist. Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett and Harris are doing important work that hopefully will continue to build momentum. However, most people in the USA have never even heard of these gentleman. Believers don't tend to tune into radio or TV programs where they may be briefly featured, and believers certainly don't pick up their books. Or if they do know about them, they see them as bad, wrong, or evil and stay away from them.
This blog is a outlet for those of us who feel isolated. Is the isolation a perception or is it real? Probably some of both. Until there is a change in the whole corrupt political system that has a domino effect on media business and the courts, we are going to stay manipulated, and most won't even realize how it affects their daily lives.
21. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!
Comment #99274 by Jayday on December 16, 2007 at 7:57 am
DIACANU
Thanks for the link to the Hitchens Vanity Fair article on Mark Daily's death in Iraq. Like PHIL RIMMER said on this blog, it does show that Hitchens does take his moral responsibilities about Iraq seriously, and for this I give Hitchens praise. He was gracious to the Daily family.
I may not agree with Hitchens about the US occupation of Iraq and our reason to be there. We don't have to agree. I was simply making a comment that I found his point of view confusing and unlike this article, when I've heard him speak about it in person, he was not as gracious, he was quite defensive. It is not a judgement, I am simply stating a fact.
Some on this blog have said they don't care if Bush and Blair lied to get us in to Iraq. I do care very much. As an American, I do believe in the Constitution and Bill or Rights. I care that both are being trashed by a man who uses the religious fundamentalists to get elected, and actually said that GOD told him to invade Iraq. How can I trust a man like that to lead us? In any other situation he would be labelled a psychopath. For this reason, I work to support the separation of church and state. The current government is working very hard to blur that line.
Hitchens and I do agree on this topic. Hitchens regularly says "Mr. Jefferson, build up that wall." In deed, in deed.
on another topic...
to DOWNUNDER
If you want to attempt to contact Daniel Dennett, try doing a google search. I believe he still teaches at Tufts University. I did contact him via email last year about something and he did respond personally. It may be worth the try.
22. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!
Comment #99105 by Jayday on December 15, 2007 at 3:02 pm
@HEATHEN ANGEL
Quote:
While I do not agree in the least with Hitch, nor the current MISadministration in their decision to invade and occupy Iraq.. I DO see where Hitch is coming from. However, after watching this production, I am left with the question.. is Hitch suffering from the same cognitive dissonance that is referenced during the discussion. Here's what I mean.
Hitch professes, in the video that he doesn't see one religion as being "worse" than the others in the scheme of things. Holding each and everyone of them to the same standard as being total BS and being equally dangerous.. potentially, if not actually. Ok.. I can respect that opinion.
However, it seems his "alliance" with the 'Murikkkan government to invade and occupy Iraq is based on the belief that there definitely IS a "lesser of two evils" in the religion department, and Islam is certainly doesn't hold the title of "the lesser".
Perhaps I'm just reading more into it.. but that is how I viewed it.
Maybe, though it is more of the "racist" concept on gangland violence.. "why do anything about it, let them kill each other off" ("each other" being predominantly blacks.. as found in many of the gangs of S.E. LA and such.)
Does any of this make sense, or am I just rambling? END QUOTE
____________________________________________________________________
HEATHEN ANGEL, I don't think you are rambling. I think you have brought up some interesting points about cognitive dissonance and Mr. Hitchens to consider.
I attended one of his lectures here in the USA a few months ago. He was quite charming and articulate. When asked about Iraq, his whole mannerism changed. He was quite defensive and basically stated he believes that we are doing the right thing militarily. I was quite stunned at his approach and was bothered by the divide in his thought process. In fact, he didn't make it clear WHO he thought we should be going after. If he believes we should go after every malicious dictator on the planet, we have got a long and bloody, never ending road to go down. This is unreasonable. There was an audible gasp and then a huge hush in the lecture room. It was a great embarrassment about his "blinders." If it was showmanship, it was quite callous.
Sometimes war is necessary. In my opinion, this one in Iraq was not. Either SH masterminded 9/11 attacks or he didn't. It is a pretty black or white issue. It isn't a matter of debate anymore. We know he did not. We were mislead by the Bush administration and intelligence agencies via the WMD stories, as a means to an agenda that wasn't disclosed to the world. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions but not their own facts. Yes it does amaze me that there are still people out there who think SH had anything seriously to do with 9/11. It is like a mob mentality, false patriotism. Perhaps a way to deflect fear of the situation and feel powerful if an "enemy" can be targeted. But, it isn't that easy. Terrorist are not a country or even a well defined army.
In the video here, Hitchens stated he didn't want religion to go away because he would then miss the debate. It obviously surprised the others. I really hope he was kidding. Are these debates solely for his intellectual amusement or for lining his pockets? There may be other valid reasons why we should not rid the world of religion, but I certainly can't say what. Dennett and Harris may have much to say about that. Somehow I doubt that Mr. Hitchen's glibness about important issues would go over well with the parents of fallen soldiers. They are more than just intellectual amusements.
23. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!
Comment #99060 by Jayday on December 15, 2007 at 11:39 am
Matt,
Sadam was a brutal dictator the world could do without. But, it has never been proven that he masterminded the attack on 9/11. That conncection has proven to be propaganda by the Bush administration to support their goals. If we are about evidence and rationality here, it just doesn't add up.
There are just as many other brutal dictators still alive and killing innocent people around the world that are not being challenged and removed from power.
As I said before, I supported going after Bin Laden and the Taliban in Afganistan after 9/11. We got way off track when the conflict moved to Iraq. That is like saying the Danes arranged an attack on London for some reason and the British decide to attack the Swedes in retaliation. Total nonsense.
I don't dislike Hitchens at all. I think he is a brilliant writer and speaker. I just see that he manages to compartmentalize his "rationality" when it comes to a different topic than religion. We are all capable of this mental action. I've just never heard him admit to the incongruity of his line of reason when it comes to the current war in Iraq.
24. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!
Comment #99052 by Jayday on December 15, 2007 at 11:12 am
Josh, a fantastic production, thank you!
KEITH: I agree, there are times when I wanted to hear more from Dawkins, Dennett and Harris but Hitchens would just dominate the conversation.
As an American, I really wanted to hear what DD&Harris had to say about the war in Iraq. I have a hard time separating the Bush administration policy with their religious beliefs to take action in Iraq. Bush saying that god told him to invade! How frightening is that? Bush either believes it, or he is using religion as a cover to get away with what he wants to do, which is get the oil. Both can be true. But then why use religion?
Anyway, I've been puzzled by Hitchen's support for the invasion. As a man who promotes rationalism, he doesn't seem to demonstrate rationalism when it comes to Iraq. How does Hitchen think that our presence in the middle east in the form we are now, is actually going to reduce the threat of some Jihadist getting his hands on a nuclear weapon?
I was all for going after Bin Laden and rooting out the terrorist camps in Afganistan and....making inroads at stopping the madrass schools. As long as "our friends" the Saudis fund schools that promote hate for the west, we don't have a chance. As far as I can see, this has NOTHING to do with the fight in Iraq. It totally misses the mark, deflects the real issues, uses up resources that could be best used elsewhere in the world and gets innocent people killed.
I would like a clear and concise response from Hitchens as to why he thinks our presence in Iraq is really a useful fight to stop the violence in the middle east. If anyone on the blog knows of a link to something he has written that gives depth, please post it on this blog. The little i've heard is quite pedantic on Mr. Hitchens part.
25. Debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza
Comment #96190 by Jayday on December 10, 2007 at 6:18 am
I attended the 3rd debate held at Pasadena's Cal Tech on December 9th. It was an event hosted by the Skeptics Society. Shermer runs the Society. I've heard Shermer speak several times. He speaks well. What I did learn is that he is a very poor debater. D'Souza ran Shermer into the ground yesterday. It was a sorry sight. D'Souza is very good with convolution. Shermer wasn't sharp enough to go to the core of the confusion D'Souza creates to diffuse and refute the issues. I wasn't sure if Shermer was nervous or simply didn't care, or both. He really didn't get into the debate with any passion of conviction. I was quite disappointed.
Dennett was more more apt at his debate with D'Souza. I would love to see a debate between Dawkins and D'Souza. And, by the way, D'Souza tramped all over Dawkins during this debate. He will go for the throat, something Shermer wasn't prepared to do. Shermer treated both camps as having personal opinions and no facts. This ticked me off.
In reality this debate would seem like small peanuts to some people in the greater scheme of things, it would be a live and let live issue...In muslim countries where the church and state of one, it is a much bigger issue and of course the violence has been brought to America. Why I think it matters and Shermer didn't effectively deal wth it, is that here in American we have a lunatic president who has built a government and power structure, much of whose values are drawn from their religion. It is horrifying. Shermer didn't read his audience. It was a crowd probably close to 2000. I think he saw it as a game and didn't take the opportunity. Shermer vaguely, mentioned the structure of our Constitution. He acted as though it didn't matter to him if this Republican conservative trend kept on and that the Bush regime has been tramping on the Constitution with great vigor. It was an embarrassment.
The Skeptics Society did host Dawkins, Dennett,and Harris at separate. All very eloquent at their topics. I've appreciated the Society to bring such great speakers. I think I will leave it at that.
26. Richard Dawkins - Science and the New Atheism
Comment #95397 by Jayday on December 8, 2007 at 9:16 am
It is interesting that the conversation has focused on human animals eating non-human animals. Other non-human animals who eat their prey do it because they have evolved to do so. Isn't that also true of humans? In my mind it is more about eating animals for food (survival and nutrients) and not inflicting unnecessary cruelty in the process, or killing for the prize sport of it.
27. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali
Comment #89284 by Jayday on November 20, 2007 at 7:21 am
I would like to suggest that the Ayaan Hirsi Ali website include a donation figure that says "Other" for those who cannot afford to make the minimum $25 payment. It would enable those who don't have a lot to give what they can if they wish to do so.
With that said, none of us have a "god" who is going to come to her rescue and watch out for her safety. The universe was not "created" for our benefit and isn't going to watch out for any of us....We only have each other. We either stand up and support each other or we don't. What is it going to be?
28. Face to faith
Comment #82911 by Jayday on October 28, 2007 at 8:28 am
Wow...When I see a thunderstorm approaching I am in awe of its power and beauty. It is "magic" in the sense that it is an amazing natural phenomena. It doesn't have to be imbued with supernatural features to make me feel that sense of wonder about it. I am amazed that in the vastness of the universe, that air, clouds, water, lightning and the various properties that intermix to create it even exist. And, that I have evolved from the same elemental properties that can stand there and be aware of it. The deep sense of beauty does not escape the fact that I know about the underlying science! This guy has got to be kidding!
29. Atheists: Get off of our country!
Comment #44654 by Jayday on May 25, 2007 at 6:33 am
I recently watched a Science Channel program on the topic of going to Mars and the science it would take to get us there and set up a permanent settlement. It was al very interesting until the narrator talked about the possibility that some people may go for "religious" reasons. The really disturbing thing was that it wasn't clear if he meant to spread religion into the cosmos via Mars, or as a new start in a place that doesn't have religion as a part of the social structure. I have an idea...since our solar system will eventually die with the sun, how about we leave all the theists behind and strike out into the cosmos with a clean slate of reasonable people who don't spread this kind of hate and ignorance?
30. Angry atheists are hot authors
Comment #44454 by Jayday on May 24, 2007 at 8:43 pm
I am gratified to know that there are people buying Hitchens', Dawkins' and Harris' books. Before the catastrophy of the George Bush presidency and then 9/11 and the Iraq quagmire, I suspect most Americans wouldn't have paid much attention to these authors. Not because they didn't have anything worthwhile to say about religion, but because our world in American was predominantly a live and let live existence. Dawkins rightly characterized it by saying that most religious practice was pretty benign. I may not have been a theist, but if my neighbor was, it wasn't a big deal. However, when our government positioned itself to legislate "morality" and set a foreign policy based on their right wing Christian fundamentalist beliefs, then more people have taken notice! Of course these authors are "hot," and it is a great thing. They are saying what we've always wanted to say but were never motivated. As Dawkins says, we were "taught" not to discuss religion in company. He is absolutely right, there are high stakes, and we shouldn't be bullied into painting a face of false respect by people who are taking away our personal freedom and try to replace it with some supernatural garbage or who paint their idea of a moral world as some simplistic fairytale without nuance and depth. Take away the fear mongers who try to manipulate us and we see the emperor really is naked.
Upcoming Events:
About this site
Mailing List Signup: Enter your email
Go to The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science
Richard Dawkins Articles | Comments | Tour Journal
Atheist Resources | Local Groups
Debate Points | Latest Responses
Links:
Quotes of Note:
"The War Prayer: "O Lord our God, help us to tear their bodies to bloody shreds with our shells; help us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms of their patriot dead; help us to drown the thunder of the guns with the shrieks of their wounded.""
Mark Twain
"Most people can't bear to sit in church for an hour on Sundays. How are they supposed to live somewhere very similar to it for eternity?"
Mark Twain
"Sex brought into existence the gene pool, made meaningful the species, and changed the whole ball game of evolution itself."
Richard Dawkins
"We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further."
Richard Dawkins
"During many ages there were witches. The Bible said so. The Bible commanded that they should not be allowed to live. Therefore the Church, after doing its duty in but a lazy and indolent way for 800 years, gathered up its halters, thumbscrews, and firebrands, and set about its holy work in earnest. She worked hard at it night and day during nine centuries and imprisoned, tortured, hanged, and burned whole hordes and armies of witches, and washed the Christian world clean with their foul blood. Then it was discovered that there was no such thing as witches, and never had been. One does not know whether to laugh or to cry."
Mark Twain
Other Recommended Reading
The End of Faith
Sam Harris
The Moral Animal
Robert Wright
The Varieties of Scientific Experience
Carl Sagan, Ann Druyan (Editor)
Irreligion
John Allen Paulos
The Secular Conscience
Austin Dacey
Read the 1st Chapter!
More Books
Adjust font size: 
"If this book doesn't change the world -- we're all screwed."
-Penn (Penn & Teller)
The God Delusion
by Richard Dawkins
Over 1.5 million copies sold
DVDs
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'AAI 2007 Conference' DVD
