1. Biologist fired for beliefs, suit says

Comment #95933 by Shrunk on December 9, 2007 at 1:48 pm

ADH:

But positting a materialistic origin for the universe and for life is also clearly unsubstatiated. In that sense it is a "faith": "matter-cum-energy" of the gaps

I disagree. It is not a matter of faith because it can be emprically verified or falsified.

And, again, there is no evidence Abraham was fired for his religious beliefs. He was fired for not understanding evolution, which was a matter of competence for his position.

2. Biologist fired for beliefs, suit says

Comment #95853 by Shrunk on December 9, 2007 at 10:53 am

Now, how does all this square with the ID/creationist position that ID is a scientific "theory", having nothing to do with religion?

I, too, smell a rat. Is it a coincidence that "Expelled" is due for release in a few months?

3. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #92780 by Shrunk on December 1, 2007 at 1:03 pm

I believe there is an issue about why the universe seems so suitable to life (and, despite what so many have argued, this really is the case, or so I believe). I don't think this issue can be easily dismissed.

A couple of counterarguments to this.

1) As far as we know, earth is only place in the universe suitable to life, let alone where life actually exists. I think it's a stretch to describe the universe as "suitable to life" when only an almost infinitesimally small portion of it supports life.

2) Your statment assumes that life as it exists on earth is the only possible form life can take. I can think of no reason why, theoretically, for any planet in the unverse, there could not be a form of life that could exist there. In other words, every planet has a particular set of conditions that could allow life to emerge there, but those conditions are different for each planet. It's a matter of if and when those conditions will arise. Earth just happened to win the lottery.

4. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #92322 by Shrunk on November 30, 2007 at 9:36 am

I remember watching a Danish film a few years ago by one of the DOGMA directors. I think I can just about remember it without making too much up.

Keith, the movie you're thinking of is Together, by Lukas Moodysson. He's Swedish, and I don't think he's formally part of the DOGME movement, but this film certainly seems to be influenced by it (except for the liberal use of soundtrack music, often by ABBA). Great movie, regardless.

5. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #92200 by Shrunk on November 30, 2007 at 3:36 am

I'm glad that Prof. Dawkins posted his clarification. On re-reading the article, it became clear to me that his main criticism was of sexual jealousy, and that that criticism does not necessarily imply an endorsement of a "promiscuously swinging lifestyle." To be clear, that particular form of jealousy is of more than theoretical interest. It can actually prove fatal, as the still-too-common practice of "honour killings" in various cultures demonstrates.

Of course, that doesn't mean the fundies won't have a field day with this article.

As it turns out, I will be attending a lecture by a colleague on the biological basis of monogamy later today; its title is "Monogamy or Monotony". I'll post a summary here if it's relevent.

6. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #91855 by Shrunk on November 29, 2007 at 1:04 pm

I agree that it is useful, of not obligatory, to question mores that have traditionally been relgious in nature. The changing attitudes towards homosexuality, for instance, is one of the more fortunate results of the diminishing role of religion as the arbiter of moral standards.

However, sexual monogamy is not quite in the same boat as homosexuality, in the sense of the latter being something proscribed for arbitrary religious reasons. I think monogamy has as much to do with trust and honesty as with sex. The simple fact is, for most couples there is an expectation that their partner will not have other sexual partners. One reason for this might be that it is difficult to become sexually involved with someone without also becoming emotionally involved.

In any event, I think it is important to view such issues in terms of actual harm done to other individuals, even if that harm is strictly emotional, rather than in terms of adherence to abstract moral values. And certainly, too often, jealousy has prompted the supposedly "wronged" party to commit acts far more heinous than a mere affair.

7. Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial

Comment #89085 by Shrunk on November 19, 2007 at 4:56 pm

As astounding as it seems, I can understand how Behe could make that mistake. He would be focussing so hard on the Flagellum in it's role as a motor that he completely overlooks the possibility that a subset of the device might have another purpose. It is an easy mistake to make.

What I cannot forgive him for is not letting go of the whole charade when the obvious logical flaws were revealed. That is also human nature since he has now backed himself into a corner from which there is no coming back.

My favourite/most exasperating part of Behe's testimony was his quotemine from the David DeRosier article on the flagellum. If the plaintiffs wanted to really nail Behe, they could have had DeRosier testify to what he actually meant in his article. They could then have pointed out that Behe had EVERY SCIENTIFIC ARTICLE PUBLISHED IN THE HISTORY OF HUMANKIND to quote from, and he had to resort to misrepresentation in order to make it appear that a single one supported ID.

8. Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial

Comment #88957 by Shrunk on November 19, 2007 at 9:09 am

Not to be a pain, but I still don't think my question was answered. What I'm wondering is whether the Dover verdict sets a legal precedent that makes the teaching of ID illegal anywhere in the country. If so, I wonder if this is why the Discovery Institute and many of the "expert" witnesses that were scheduled to appear for the defense distanced themselves from the trial.

9. Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial

Comment #88658 by Shrunk on November 18, 2007 at 12:09 pm

I wonder if anyone knowledgeable of the American legal system can explain how severe a blow this actually is to the creationist movement. If any other school board in the nation attempts to put ID on the curriculum, is it now sufficient to simply cite the Dover verdict as a precedent that proves such an action to be illegal? If so, the creationists are going to have a hard time repackaging their doctrine yet again without leaving evidence that it is simply a rewording of creationism/ID.

10. Eugenie Scott on Intelligent Design and Young Earth Creationism

Comment #82113 by Shrunk on October 25, 2007 at 5:30 pm

I'm no legal expert, but isn't it unusual for judges to be as scathing in the wordings of their judgements as they seem to be in these creationist cases? It's as if they are saying, "You bothered wasting my time with THIS?"

The Dover trial was full of so many inanities. Right from the start: This is a case that hinges entirely on proving that ID has nothing to do with religion. So who does the defense choose as their law firm? The Thomas More Law Center. WTF?

11. You can't be moral without God!

Comment #81831 by Shrunk on October 25, 2007 at 8:47 am

I think this is just another "God in the gaps" argument. Neuroscience, psychology, ethology, evolutionary biology, philosophy and other disciplines all have partial explanations regardings the origins of moral sense. To postulate God as its cause is to simply abrogate the responsibility for finding the real answer.

12. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc. were atheists, and they were terrible! Answer that!

Comment #81818 by Shrunk on October 25, 2007 at 8:33 am

The other point to be made is that no one claims that atheism automatically makes someone a more moral person. It's quite possible for someone to be an atheist and still be evil. However, many theists argue that it is only through religion and/or God that morality exists. Therefore, while the existence of some evil atheists does not in any way argue against atheism itself, the existence of even one good atheist or a single evil theist disproves the pro-religion argument.

13. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc. were atheists, and they were terrible! Answer that!

Comment #81763 by Shrunk on October 25, 2007 at 6:29 am

1) In all fairness, I think we can be as guilty as the theists of confusing correlation with causation. If we're not careful, the Pol Pot/Stalin argument can get thrown in our face. For instance, I believe it is valid to draw a direct link between Muslim suicide bombers and their faith, as their actions are a direct manifestation of the latter. On the other hand, we would be wrong to blame Catholicism for the sexual abuse of children by priests, as that is not condoned anywhere in the faith. If we make this argument, I think "So what about Stalin?" is a valid response. (At the same time, I think the the behaviour of priests and televangelists IS relevent if the argument is over whether religion/God is the source of morality.)

2) The most free, stable and just societies are based on secular principles. Has there ever been a theocracy that was not also a brutal dictatorship?

3) The argument over body counts is pointless. That Osama Bin Laden or Torquemada have killed fewer people than Stalin or Pol Pot doesn't make them nicer people. It just means they weren't as "successful" in carrying out their plans. Bin Laden would kill every Jew walking the earth if he could. He just hasn't figured out how.

14. War in Heaven: Hitchens Meets D'Souza on Home Turf

Comment #81170 by Shrunk on October 24, 2007 at 10:21 am

Last night at the Society for Ethical Culture, the big question was: whose body count is bigger? Atheism's or Christianity's?

The question that comes to my mind is, "If Christianity is supposed to be the sole source of morality, why would it have a body count at all?"

15. The greatest debate

Comment #80878 by Shrunk on October 23, 2007 at 9:48 am

Spong:

I think that God is so much bigger than a theist definition. The problem is Christianity was shaped in the 1st century when people believed the earth was the centre of the universe. And we live in the 21st century when we have some perception of how small the earth is in the universe. It's a very different world. What I am asking people to do is read the New Testament for what it really says. The Christian faith is so much greater than what we have people talking about today in its popular expression. It's mostly about controlling behaviour. Fundamentally, I have to live a good life because it's worth living, not because I get a reward for doing it or get punished for not doing it.

This seems only slightly different from the atheist position. I'm not sure what would be lost by simply expunging the concept of God altogether.

16. The Problem with Atheism

Comment #75645 by Shrunk on October 3, 2007 at 7:49 am

Most comments so far have looked at Harris' speech as if it is divided into two, unrelated parts: "Part A" on the tactical disadvantages of the term "atheist" and "Part B" on introspection/meditation. However, to me both parts are related, and the second follows logically from the first.

What I believe he is saying in the second half is that there is reason to treat "spiritual" experiences (for lack of a better world) as a legitimate phenomenon worthy of study and understanding. To disregard these experiences would be a tactical error, because it then leaves the field open for religion to monopolize discussion of the very real concerns that Harris addresses.

I believe there is a misperception that to be an atheist means to acknowledge the existence only of the hard facts of reality, and ignore matters of the spirit, the meaning of life, or whatever other inadequate terms we have for the existential questions Harris alludes to. To the degree that this misperception persists (if it is, in fact, a misperception), people will continue to feel that to renounce religion will also mean giving up any hope of finding answers to these questions. That can only hurt our cause.

17. Creationism raised as Ont. election issue

Comment #68394 by Shrunk on September 7, 2007 at 4:05 am

Leaving aside the serious element of this article, I'm somewhat perturbed that there's a Conservative politician in Canada named 'Mr Tory'.

It is an ironic coincidence. He ran unsuccessfully for mayor of Toronto a few years ago, and I'm convinced that his surname cost him votes, if only on a subconscious level, in this largely left-leaning city.

A (big C) Conservative in Canada is not quite the same thing as a conservative in the USA, and Tory is generally a moderate on social issues. His statement on creationism seems out of character. However, there are always social conservatives within his party who pull some weight in policy making.

18. Creationism raised as Ont. election issue

Comment #68305 by Shrunk on September 6, 2007 at 6:55 pm

"Publicly-funded religious schools..." What the heck is going on in Canada? I thought they were smarter than their southern neighbor.

The public funding of Catholic schools in Canada is largely a historic anachronism. It arose in response to fears of the (predominately Catholic)French minority, at the time of Confederation, that their culture would be lost amidst the English majority. To address these fears, the establishment of separate Protestant and Catholic school systems was enshrined in the British North America Act, the de facto Canadian constitution at the time. The Protestant system eventually evolved into the secular main public system, but the Catholic system has survived, at least in Ontario.

As it happens, opinion polls generally show the public favours scrapping the Catholic system, if only because of the inefficiency of funding two separate systems. However, to date it has been too hot a potato for politicians to handle. Ironically, by putting the issue on the table, Tory may actually spur the elimination of publicly funded religious schools.

19. Honest Mistakes or Willful Mendacity

Comment #68154 by Shrunk on September 6, 2007 at 8:58 am

This seems to be a recurring phenomenon among the religious: Misrepresenting or misconstruing quotations to mean something very different (and often the exact opposite) of what the original writer intended. I often wonder the degree to which this is deliberate. Certainly, the examples RD cites here suggest that Cornwell (of whom I know nothing) is either very stupid or very dishonest. I think the preponderance of the evidence is in favour of the latter (although, of course, the two options are not mutually exclusive.) If the religious are indeed resorting to such duplicitous tactics, it may be a sign that even they are beginning to realize that there are no valid arguments to be made in defense of their beliefs.

In other instances, however, it is not clear to me whether any deliberate misrepresentation is occurring. I'm sure we have all had arguments with fundamentalists where it seems that they are simply not grasping what we are saying. I often wonder if fundamentalists actually have an impaired ability to comprehend abstract thought, to understand irony or sarcasm. This is, after all, how they approach their religious texts: The written words mean exactly what they say. There is no such thing as allegory, context is irrelevent.

If this is true, it would be interesting to find out if there are specific cognitive deficits in verbal comprehension that predispose to fundamentalism. Or, alternatively, if the fundamendalist mindset becomes so engrained that it begins to affect how people read all texts, not just "sacred" ones.

20. Is Christianity Good for the World? A discussion between Christopher Hitchens and Douglas Wilson

Comment #56017 by Shrunk on July 13, 2007 at 9:53 am

Here's a truly shocking article in the Calgary Sun:

http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Columnists/Jackson_Paul/2007/06/26/4290796-sun.html

The most shocking passage in that article is this:

"Quite obviously Dawkins has no knowledge whatsoever of Day's political acumen."

For those not familiar with Canadian politics, the terms "Stockwell Day" and "political acumen" have about as much to do with each other as "Paris Hilton" and "expertise in particle physics".

Just a glance at the format of the column, with each paragraph consisting of a nice, simple, third-grade level declarative sentence, should give an idea of the mentality of the intended audience.

21. At a Theater Near You ...

Comment #53942 by Shrunk on July 4, 2007 at 10:04 am

I don't pretend to understand the reasons for the rise of suicide bombing by Muslims, and certainly this article is correct in saying that the recent arrests in the UK challenge, to say the least, the belief that it is a reaction of the downtrodden and disenfranchised to their situation.

However, I think the phenomenon is most likely to be understood if we can figure out how faith manifests itself in particular behaviours. Faith makes people do all sorts of crazy things. For Catholics to believe that a cracker can be turned into the body of a 2000 year old dead man by saying a few words over it, and that you should then eat it, is crazy. Crazy but harmless.

In the same way, a significant number of Muslims have come to the conclusion that their faith is best expressed by strapping explosives to their body and killing themselves, along with as many innocent bystanders they can. This is obviously a more dangerous manifestation of faith than the eucharist, but it seems to me that the two phenomena are of a kind. In both instances, otherwise rational people have suspended logical thought and are acting on the dictates of faith without questioning what they are doing.

22. The infinite wisdom of Richard Dawkins

Comment #51707 by Shrunk on June 24, 2007 at 8:24 am

There have been a few references here to Stephen Harper being a Christian fundamentalist, or at least being sympathetic to their cause. However, in the time he has been in office, few of his statements or policies seem to have been motivated by such a philosophy. There was the vote to revisit the issue of gay marriage, but that seemed to me to be little more than a sop to the far-right wing of his party, and his heart never really seemed to be in that debate. If anything, he appeared relieved when the motion failed and he was able to declare the issue closed.

There are two, equally cynical views to take. The first is that he doesn't hold very strong religious beliefs, but has to make a show of it to placate certain elements of his constituency. The other is that he is a closet faith-head but has had to hide the fact because of the constraints of a minority government, and if he ever wins majority he will show his true colours. (Some members of the evangelical right, a much weaker force here than south of the border, seem to hold this hope.)

Does anyone have evidence of what Harper's actual views are re: the degree to which public policy should be influenced by relgious ideology? We could be having an election at any moment and, although there is no way I am voting for Harper in any event, I'd at least like to know how frightened I should be by the prospect of a Conservative majority.

23. 'Purity' ring case in High Court

Comment #51347 by Shrunk on June 22, 2007 at 12:21 pm

I have to agree with those who say this girl has a point. I don't see how her ring is any less integral to her faith than a hijab is to a Muslim girl's. All this case will accomplish will be to allow the Christian fundamentalists to claim a victory when she wins her case.

24. The Great Mutator

Comment #51028 by Shrunk on June 21, 2007 at 7:38 am

For a start, let us be clear about what Behe now accepts about evolutionary theory. He has no problem with a 4.5-billion-year-old Earth, nor with evolutionary change over time, nor apparently with its ample documentation through the fossil record--the geographical distribution of organisms, the existence of vestigial traits testifying to ancient ancestry, and the finding of fossil "missing links" that show common ancestry among major groups of organisms. Behe admits that most evolution is caused by natural selection, and that all species share common ancestors. He even accepts the one fact that most other IDers would rather die than admit: that humans shared a common ancestor with chimpanzees and other apes.

If anyone here has had the patience to actually read Behe, is this quote an accurate description of his views? If so, it would seem to be a very handy stick to use to beat up on the creationists, that their poster boy believes in pretty well all of the fundamental tenets of evolution.

25. The New Atheists

Comment #51025 by Shrunk on June 21, 2007 at 7:29 am

Religion didn't give them their talent but did inspire them. Would you not agree that deep love for another human being can generate an intense emotional state familiar to many artists, especially poets and that religious devotion can inspire a similar state. Apart from talent is it not the intensity of that feeling that is present in all great art, no matter what inspired it?

Dawkins addressed this issue in a debate that was linked here. I can't recall his exact words, but the gist of the argument was that artists had to go where the money was, and for much of the past it was the Church that had all the money. He went on to say that we will never know what would have happened if Michelangelo had painted the ceiling of the Museum of Science, or if Handel composed a Jurassic Oratorio. Nowadays, of course, most of the great architectural masterpieces are produced for commercial or cultural institutions.

None of this is to say that I doubt that Bach, for example, was sincere in his religious beliefs. OTOH, Beethoven was at best lukewarm to religion, and his Missa Solemnis was probably composed for the pleasure of his patron and to establish his own position in the grand tradition of liturgical choral music, rather than being an expression of personal religious faith.

26. The Great Mutator

Comment #50647 by Shrunk on June 19, 2007 at 7:51 am

I must say that I'm a bit puzzled about the whole intelligent design movement. What exactly is it that they are trying to do?

I also find it hard to fathom, especially with Behe. If this article is accurate, he has pretty much conceded the entire field of biology (including natural selection and the role of mutations) to evolution. He reserves ID for only a few obscure biochemical sequences. I wonder how many in the creationist camp realize that their poster boy accepts that humans share ancestry with other primates?

He continues to publish his ideas (they do not approach the status of theory) in general interest books, avoiding the scrutiny of peer review. He also fails to address the evidence that has disproven his arguments, continuing to state, for example, that the bacterial flagellum is "irreducibly complex" long after that argument has been thoroughly debunked. All this suggests to me that he has no intention of presenting a scientifically convincing argument. His goals, and those of the entire ID movement, would instead appear to be political.

Their objective is to introduce the idea of God as a legitimate topic for science classes. And they realize that the achievement of that objective does not depend on putting forth convincing scientific evidence. It only requires convincing enough of the general public that ID is real science. The school curriculum is determined by elected trustees. If I understand it correctly, if you were to convince a school board somewhere that your "Cube Earth Theory" was legitimate, there is nothing to stop them from adding it to the curriculum - unless it could be proven that the theory in fact had a religious basis.

That seems to me to be the ID movement's goal: Dress up religion in enough scientific-sounding trappings that the general public accepts it as legitimate science, and are willing to elect officials who will push it onto the curriculum. And they've succeeded, to an extent. They just haven't figured a way to get around the courts. (And, of course, their political victory in Dover was short-lived; the voters turfed the creationists out of office the first chance they got.)