1. Blinded by a divine light

Comment #256282 by blu on September 29, 2008 at 3:24 am

I think that justaminute's quote is totally on the money, and is just a consequence of scientists begin human beings. In the classic data-hypothesis-experiment-data loop, the hypothesis has to come from somewhere, and will usually involve some creativity. There is nothing wrong with getting a "hunch", that is one of the ways humans have to be creative. There is nothing in the quote to indicate any kind of lack of integrity. It doesn't say "falsify data" or "ignore counter data".
It suggests that the scientist is driven by a desire to prove a particular hypothesis. So, what? That just makes the loop into a damped loop, increasing the stability of the whole thing. A particular scientist may find it hard to change direction but that is how it should be. Otherwise the system will tend to be chaotic, making progress in fits and starts in random directions. It might discover all the same principles, but that is not how humans work efficiently.

2. Why There Almost Certainly Is a God, By Keith Ward

Comment #255747 by blu on September 28, 2008 at 5:40 am

Fascinating. The author of this review in the end found Ward unconvincing and not as fun to read as Dawkins, and too esoteric to follow, but he recommends Ward anyway.

3. Antony Flew reviews the Index of The God Delusion

Comment #214476 by blu on July 20, 2008 at 2:00 pm

It's been awhile since I read The God Delusion, but I distinctly recall a discussion of what a Deist believes and how it differs from a Theist. Or am I just mis-remembering? However, given that I know that I did not know the distinction before reading TGD and GING and my current understanding matches what is written above, I am going to guess that Richard Dawkins was aware of it before he wrote the book. And don't I recall reading a refutation about Einstein? I think that the author here did get it right when he said that RD did not write TGD to explore Truth, but to spread the author's own convictions. But it does present the reasons for that conviction, so what is the problem? TGD is not a theology book after all, but science writing.

4. God and Science Collide in Nation's Capital

Comment #181725 by blu on May 18, 2008 at 4:31 am

Many scientists believe in god because religion is becomming "thinner". Where once religious belief affected everything in ones life, today few believers really understand the tenents and requirements of their own affiliations. As long as their field of study doesn't smack them right in the face with the contradictions, they just don't think about it and keep going through the motions of what they learned in childhood.

5. First 'Rule' Of Evolution Suggests That Life Is Destined To Become More Complex

Comment #146143 by blu on March 18, 2008 at 5:08 pm

This is hardly surprising when considered in light of maintaining a equilibrium. The more complex something becomes, the more difficult it is to maintain and the more energy needed to for it to live. On the other hand, greater complexity allows for a greater number of survival strategies. So, as things evolve, they will tend to become more complex, eventually reaching a plateau where further complexity is counter productive. But less complexity will likewise need to provide a survival boost for it to be selected for. If the boast is provided simply for the greater simplicity and less energy use, then that suggests that the mutation that led to the greater complexity would not have been selected in the first place. Thus we can see that a wholesale string of changes that lead to more simplicity is unlikely. This is the logical results of the processes pointed out in "Climbing Mount Improbable", all change must be an improvement.

Of course, parasites can move in this direction because they are able to improve by discarding those biological processes that are now redundant when they embarked on parasitism in the first place.

6. Atheists arise: Dawkins spreads the A-word among America's unbelievers

Comment #75249 by blu on October 2, 2007 at 6:22 am

I have to agree with Nick Good on this one. While I tend to agree with everything else in the article, I have a very negative reaction to the statement about Jews monopolizing foreign policy. While the point he is making is well taken, namely that even smaller lobbies are successful, this particular example is ill-advised. It is not at all clear that it is "religious Jews" that "monopolize American foreign policy". While American foreign policy includes a pro-Israel component and that many of those that are responsible for creating foreign policy are culturally Jewish, it is far from clear that the one is because of the other. Nor is is clear that these people are "religious Jews". I suspect that when it comes down to it, many are in fact atheists and exactly those that Richard is trying to reach.

I think the main point was sound, and I would not balk if it had merely said that religious Jews are highly influential though less numerous. But the example as given just undermines the point rather than strengthens it.

7. Hebrew Charter School Spurs Dispute in Florida

Comment #65868 by blu on August 27, 2007 at 7:20 am

I have to disagree with the previous poster. From the article it seems that they are going to great pains to avoid any hint of religious instruction here. Hebrew is the language of Israel and can be taught in a completely secular manner. This is not the first public school with a kosher menu, the menu is most often a reflection of the needs of the students rather than the curriculum of the school. And this actually reduces the number of students exposed to religious teachings. Should we ban the teaching of Latin because it was the language of the Catholic Church?