1. Richard Dawkins Public Lecture - Liverpool 08

Comment #198586 by TinyRobot on June 24, 2008 at 9:20 am

I think the problem is with Google video in general. All of its videos are unobtainable at the moment.

Does anyone know if this is a general change is policy or somesuch?

2. Selling science to the masses

Comment #144322 by TinyRobot on March 15, 2008 at 3:45 pm

Have to say i'm with PZ on this one. I start twitching when someone mentions 'framing'. It seems uncomfortably close to 'deliberate mendacity' to me. Take the global warming example used by the author in this piece - let's scare people into taking science seriously!

Actually, I'd have doubts about that example too. Does anyone know of any research showing that scaring people is an effective means of communication for anything? (Genuinely curious about this).

In the end, i think well-written books and articles and well-spoken talks are the way to go. I dislike the fact that some publishers think quirkiness, vapidity, boorishness and sensationalism are required to sell popular science books (we've all seen the cringe-worthy titles). Dawkins, Dennett, Pinker et al are on the right track: serious works, capable of being read by layman and professional alike.

3. The Group Delusion

Comment #110138 by TinyRobot on January 10, 2008 at 2:35 pm

DS Wilson has been bent upon getting group selection theories back into fashion for years. There is little doubting that he is willing to redefine the concept as much as possible in order to do so. I'm not exactly an expert, but many of these topics in biology strike me as being rather meaningless semantical debates. From a certain viewpoint, group selection can make sense of an certain observed changes. However, when you try to elaborate the details of the mechanism behind these changes, individual and gene-based selection always seem to make more sense. At least that's how i see it.

I also disdain the apparent glee that media outlets take in proclaiming that Dawkins has been proved wrong (i'm thinking in particular of the recent Sunday Times article to that effect).

4. The New Atheism: An Interview with Mitchell Cohen

Comment #78039 by TinyRobot on October 11, 2007 at 3:10 pm

To be honest i can't understand why anyone really ascribes to 'left' or 'right' politics. What matters are your views on particular topics and whether they are rationally and empirically justified and not whether they fit in with some preconceived ideology. Also, i don't think the terms right and left are very informative since there is a whole spectrum of, not always coherent, views. Again i hate to plug myself but i sort of raise this point at http://noninsaneautomaton.blogspot.com

Cohen handles this point pretty well throughout this interview. Consider that the religious right (and similar conservative positions) favour huge government regulation of certain aspects of our lives (e.g. sexual morality) whereas libertarian prefer complete non-interference in such things (at least the brand of libertarianism i'm familiar with) and yet they are both considered movements of the right.

5. Ayaan Hirsi Ali: abandoned to fanatics

Comment #77511 by TinyRobot on October 9, 2007 at 1:19 pm

I think she's great and all that i really do but i can't see what is so 'contemptible' about the dutch government wanting to pull her security when she's living outside their jurisdiction (yet still being okay with it in the Netherlands of course). I know Rushdie gets British security but he does live full time in the UK as far as i know. And if as others say she's okay with the decision then there's no real argument. She should try get protection from some other sources (US government or private). That said i'll sign the petition anyway.

Anyway, you can probably tell i've no real contribution to make here i just wanted to plug my blog: http://noninsaneautomaton.blogspot.com/

Later.

6. Scientists Feel Miscast in Film on Life's Origin

Comment #74492 by TinyRobot on September 29, 2007 at 6:20 am

Since the Darwin to Hitler nonsense has been raised by several people may i recommend the following article by the inimitable Hector Avalos, entitled 'Creationists for Genocide' and available here:
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Genocide.cfm

7. Root and Branch

Comment #73880 by TinyRobot on September 26, 2007 at 1:24 pm

Lest there be any confusion let me preface this by saying i think ID/Creationism is a rather shameless and intellectually craven political movement with a complete absence of empirical data to support their claims.

With that out of the way allow me to continue...

First, i don't think Kitcher was great in his dismissal of the irreducible complexity argument.

I mean the argument was dead as it related to macroevolution, yes, but Behe raised it in relation to the evolution of 'complex' cellular/molecular systems. As it turns out his particular examples were not well chosen. I'm not a biologist but as far as i can tell from my readings, plausible, if incomplete, explanations of the evolution of structures such the bacterial flagellum (and HIV virus) are readily available. However, the claim of IC as it related to such molecular structures has an air of initial credibility to it. In other words, if Behe had produced some credible empirical evidence supporting his claim without just assuming it to be, in his own words, 'one of the greatest scientific achievements of all time' (i'm paraphrasing, but only slightly) and if he had actually tried to publish such evidence in a peer-reviewed journal, instead of assuming that the MASSIVE 'neo-darwinian' freemasonary brotherhood (also known as evolutionary biologists) would have stifled him then he could be credibly said to have a genuine and fruitful research programme. As it turns out he had no such evidence and still went ahead and published a popularising polemic about IC. Of course, Behe's God is a theological mess as well. A sort of divine interferer who created the universe as the expression of his superpowers but then suddenly remembered that he'd forgot to create some stuff.

I guess my overall point is that applying IC at the molecular level COULD have been novel and not 'dead'.

As for the article above, i thought it was pretty poor. Cartomancer's criticism is on the ball. My own personal opinion of Dawkins was greatly improved when i actually read his books (which i only started to do in the past year) instead of getting second-hand opinions of him through the media (some of whom feel he is a shrill, darwinian fundamentalist and materialist who believes we are all simply robotic automatons with lives devoid of meaning and joy). I've a feeling this guy hasn't read Dawkins at all. That said, i think TGD is probably his *worst* book. I wish people would read some of his other ones such as Unweaving the Rainbow or the Ancestor's Tale just to see how rich and intellectually (hell i'd even say 'spiritually') rewarding a rational and empirical view of life can be. Nevertheless, i'd acknowledge the success of TGD from a PR point of view, even if some of that PR has been negative.

Also the fact that he sides with the 'ordinary' americans for their negative reaction to the 'arrogant' Hitchens and Harris irked me ever so slightly. Those who profess complete knowledge of the universe is drip fed into their minds by some Immaterial, Disembodied Creator who created us as the supreme embodiment of His divine wisdom strike me as being 'arrogant'. Also, his entire article is written in a sort of offhand, disinterested 'holier than thou' tone. 'Look at me! I can quote philosopher's and historians and i'm ever so reasonable and friendly too...'

Anyway, i'm done ranting...for now....

8. Against the grain: There are questions that science cannot answer

Comment #72074 by TinyRobot on September 20, 2007 at 9:09 am

While i would certainly like to see Mrs Midgely's views on evolution and intelligent design exposed for the factual and logical errors they contain at this upcoming debate in Kings College, i would urge people to do it in as polite and courteous a manner as is possible - according to wikipedia the woman is 88 years old (that of course is no excuse for her being wrong).

Good luck to everyone who attends, i think Everitt, although ridiculously competent on the evidence of his own work, may need a helping hand or two, especially against the intellectual arrogance of steve fuller, see http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Fuller.cfm for comment.

9. Taking exception to Jake

Comment #72060 by TinyRobot on September 20, 2007 at 8:33 am

I just want to express my agreement with the tenor of PZ's article and the more specific comments made by Russell Blackford.

This all boils down to teaching people how to think critically about pretty much everything, be it a political problem or a scientific one. When we are trying to understand some set of phenomena or solve a problem we must use logical, rational, and empirical reasoning. This of course includes both deduction and induction.

Also, on political problems as a whole, far too many people approach them with an ideology in mind. They then attempt to provide a solution to the problem that coheres with this ideology (be it left wing, right wing or more specific political philosophies). What we should really do is focus on the most logical and likely solution to the particular problem. If this happens to fit with a particular ideology then so be it, but this ideology may prove to be incorrect when a different problem arises. This leads back to PZ's point about atheism being a conclusion not a premise. To summarise my point, there is no such thing as a correct political ideology, there are only political problems and the best solutions to these problems.

Note: anyone who wants to point out that 'critical thinking' is an ideology on its own and that therefore my entire argument is paradoxical, don't bother. I'll merely appeal to Russell's Theory of Types or, more likely, bask, Hodstadter-esque in the glorious self-referentiality of human rationality.

10. Like any half-decent atheist, I'm fond of a bit of religion

Comment #67854 by TinyRobot on September 5, 2007 at 2:24 am

I recently attended the (catholic) funeral of a young man who died, tragically, in a car crash. I was friendly with his sister and so i did not really know anything about him personally. I have attended many church-based funerals over the years but i have never really paid much attention to what was said. But this time round i did. I would quickly acknowledge that many nice and comforting things were said (e.g. about bereavement being the price of love) - most of which had nothing to do with religion. However, most of the readings, the gospel and parts of the sermon were markedly anachronistic. There were discussions of the virtue of Jesus, the incomprehensibility of God and his wishes for us (obviously this was some attempt to 'make sense' of the tragedy that occurred), and more pronouncements about how 'sinful' we all were and how we cannot fight God's plan. I'd have to say that this left me 'cold' and, more importantly, perplexed. How anyone could find solace in this was beyond me. Additionally, what relevance it had to the life of the young man, and the tragedy that had befallen him and his family, was beyond me. Why can't a funeral be a celebration of the person's life (no matter how short or tragic it may have been) and an opportunity for everyone to reflect upon how lucky we are to be alive and how important it is not to squander the opportunities that we have. What can recitations of the rosary and making excuses for the gratuitous suffering that a 'perfect' God permits possibly offer us?

11. Why Richard Dawkins is right on alternative medicine - but not when it comes to religion

Comment #62552 by TinyRobot on August 10, 2007 at 4:58 am

There have already been many perceptive comments on Mr. Lawson's article but i'll offer a couple of observations of my own.

First, he is clearly using 'modern' (as in 'modern' christianity or religion) as a first person possesive (i.e. 'my interpretation'). I know, first hand, many religious believers who would be abhorrent at the suggestion of religion being merely ethical philosophy - what about belief in God, the real existence and divinity of Jesus, the resurrection and the ascension, man's innate sinfulness, the AFTERLIFE (a big one for most people) etc (of course i'm only looking at Christianity but insert Allah, Brahma or whatever else as is appropriate). This claim was already made, unsuccessfully, by SJ Gould in his NOMA thesis.

Also, on the Humean naturalistic fallacy (i think it was in fact GE Moore who first gave it that name), i would offer the following. I don't see how ethics can make sense unless it does refer to an objective reality (or a realm of facts). Surely ethical beliefs would not only be (factually) meaningless, but normatively useless unless there is a real world in which to apply them? I think Dan Dennett gave the best argument on this issue (in Darwin's Dangerous Idea - can't recall offhand the page) when he said that:

''Philosophers distinguish between the necessary and sufficient conditions for various things…It is one thing to deny that collections of facts about the natural world are necessary to ground an ethical conclusion, and quite another to deny that any collection of such facts is sufficient''

Consequently understanding the real world (through science) is a necessary first step in providing ourselves with the most 'accurate' (scare quotes used in recognition of the nuanced philosophical debates) ethical beliefs.

12. Arrogance, dogma and why science - not faith - is the new enemy of reason

Comment #61929 by TinyRobot on August 7, 2007 at 12:55 pm

Some people seem to have misread my post. I was reposting an article and so i don't necessarily subsrcibe to the views within it (try reading it again i thought it was pretty clear). Like i don't think the anthropic principle is a good argument for the existence of god - in fact i would say it's a good argument against the existence of god. Also i don't really know much about Anthony Flew - i've read that article on butterflies and wheels but Dawkins mentions it in TGD and that's more recent so i don't know if he has further qualified his position (flew that is).

The point of reposting the article was on the topic of biogenesis. And it was just that the laws of physics, chemistry and biology are continuous and it would be odd (in the extreme) if new laws were required to start life (no need for the elan vital or anything like that). Just because we don't have a (complete!) answer just yet.

Anyway, just like Anthony Flew, i'd like to reassure people that i'm still a steadfast naturalist/atheist.

13. Arrogance, dogma and why science - not faith - is the new enemy of reason

Comment #61835 by TinyRobot on August 7, 2007 at 4:45 am

On the whole biogenesis issue i found the following article from one of my national newspapers interesting. William Reville is, as he states himself, a fairly committed theist. He frequently uses his weekly column to propagate logically ( and sometimes scientifically) flawed arguments in favour of his religious beliefs. But like any reasonably bright person he occasionally hits the dartboard (if not the bullseye). Of course my own investigations into biogenesis reveal a plethora of plausible explanations. I would however object to the use of the word 'spontaneously' in this context. Am i wrong to say that even molecular ("evolution") would be governed by natural (physical and chemical) laws? I'm hoping i can post this in full right here:

Why we will answer life's big question

Under the Microscope/Prof William Reville: Scientists, myself included, believe that life spontaneously arose on earth from lifeless chemicals almost four billion years ago, but we still have a long way to go to figure out the details of how this happened.

Many religious people believe that God directly created life, even if the subsequent development of that life can be fully explained by the scientific theory of evolution through natural selection. I will argue here that the natural spontaneous origin of life from lifeless chemicals is far the more likely explanation.

Science has shown that the material world has developed and operates in a self-sufficient manner that is fully explicable in terms of the laws of physics and of the nature of the material fabric of the universe. There is no need to invoke divine intervention to help things along the way.

We now understand how the world began about 15 billion years ago in a massive explosion of energy called the Big Bang. Ever since then, the universe has been expanding outwards from this point origin. Two of the 92 natural elements were made in the Big Bang - hydrogen and helium. Most of the remaining elements were later bred in the interiors of stars.

We understand how stars first formed as vast clouds of hydrogen and helium gas coalesced under gravity, eventually bunching so tightly that nuclear fusion was triggered to make the stars "shine". In the first generation stars, heavier elements such as carbon, nitrogen and oxygen were formed, and ageing first generation stars expelled these elements into space. We humans are made almost entirely from these hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen and oxygen atoms - literally from star-dust. The heaviest of the 92 elements were made when later generation stars exploded in supernovae.

We understand how the planets formed as material coalesced under gravity. We understand how our solar system was formed about five billion years ago. We understand in principle, although not yet in any significant detail, how life began on earth about 3.8 billion years ago, probably as a simple single form. And we understand how life evolved from that original simple form into the myriad life forms, including humans, that now occupy every environmental niche on earth.

The entire material world sequentially bootstrapped its way from pure energy in the beginning through sub-atomic particles, hydrogen, helium, stars, galaxies, the remaining 90 elements, planets, life, consciousness, and eventually to self-conscious readers of this page. This was all made possible by the nature of the laws of physics and the innate properties of matter and energy.

You have to be awe-struck at the amazing fruitfulness of the laws of nature that can explain and underpin this stupendous development. But, why are the basic fabric and laws of the universe so fruitful. There are two possibilities - either they just happen to be so, or else God designed them for the purpose of achieving the sequential development that I briefly outlined above.

NOW TO MY main point. Since, using the laws of physics, we can explain how the entire complexity of the physical universe evolved from fundamental particles and how complex life forms evolved from simpler ones during biological evolution, it is surely reasonable to extrapolate that these laws also allowed life to originate spontaneously, whether or not these laws are designed by God. In other words, whether we approach the question of the origin of life from a theistic or an atheistic philosophical perspective, we should still predict that life arose on earth by natural causes.

Life today is biochemically complex and undoubtedly much more complex than the simple form that first arose. Nevertheless, by studying life today we can make certain predictions as to the essential characteristics that the original form of life must have had. There are many scientific efforts ongoing around the world to figure out how the original cells arose from a chemical soup. Progress is being made, but slowly. I predict that the conundrum will eventually be solved scientifically, but we must wait and see.

Many readers will have heard of the recent change of mind made by Antony Flew, the English philosopher and long-time champion of atheism, who declared that he now believes in a "Designer God". Apparently his reason for changing his mind is the lack of scientific progress in explaining how the fantastic complexity of life could arise from lifeless molecules. As a believer myself, I am naturally welcoming of any atheist who wishes to change his/her mind and to join the ranks of believers. However, I think Antony Flew is changing his mind based on very dodgy reasoning.

Scientists freely acknowledge that progress is slow in elucidating how life spontaneously arose on earth, but they are optimistic that this puzzle will be solved in due course. It would be very unwise to bet against science in such a situation. So many matters have already been explained by science that once seemed to be almost impossibly difficult, for example the molecular details of heredity. Also, as I already said, it seems unlikely that a creator would design laws of physics that are almost capable, but not quite, of developing the entire world, because they cannot surmount one intermediate step. That would seem to be inelegant, indeed downright clumsy, of the creator.

Scientific explanations are usually simple once they are figured out, and this will also probably eventually apply to the origin-of-life problem. As Albert Einstein said: "The hardest thing in the world to understand is the income tax."


William Reville is Associate Professor of Biochemistry and Public Awareness of Science Officer at UCC - understandingscience.ucc.ie
© 2007 The Irish Times
The Irish Times, July 19, 2007

14. God Answers Prayers Of Paralyzed Little Boy: 'No' Says God

Comment #61011 by TinyRobot on August 3, 2007 at 10:01 am

Now THIS is funny!

15. Could these books be part of the problem?

Comment #61008 by TinyRobot on August 3, 2007 at 9:52 am

Konquerez,

I don't see what's funny about these books at all (admittedly humour is difficult to objectively justify so let's just agree to disagree) and i don't see why you express incredulity at the existence of such titles (i apologise if you are not incredulous - i'm inferring a tone in your message). There are literally hundreds of these books - it doesn't mean that the topics treated of within their pages are all idiotic. (incidentally i am not defending 'faith' or 'christianity' or anything like that).

16. Could these books be part of the problem?

Comment #61005 by TinyRobot on August 3, 2007 at 9:46 am

I think i'm totally with RussellBlackford on this one. I don't see any point in smugly laughing at the title to these books. I actually own the complete idiot's guide to islam (and astronomy). They're not bad books but the quality is patchy. They're just a brand name and an introduction to particular topics. Anyone who wants to be serious about these areas would have to go further, but at least it's a start. I am imagine the brand name was chosen for its 'shock' value (or something along those lines as opposed to being an attempt to insult its readership.

Also, i think there should be a complete idiot's guide to atheism (if there isn't already). You don't need to be a member of some intellectual elite to appreciate a well constructed and logically sound argument. Remember, 'ignorance' is not necessarily an insult - there are many things about which i am ignorant. Let's not be irrational here folks!

17. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Edd Doerr

Comment #58766 by TinyRobot on July 26, 2007 at 4:09 am

You know 'strategy' was probably an unfortunate choice of words (how ironic given the nature of the posts up here). I wasn't trying to advocate some general proselytising or crusade by the ungodly :-)

18. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Edd Doerr

Comment #58638 by TinyRobot on July 25, 2007 at 2:32 pm

Erik,

To be honest i have no idea what a 'naturalistic' religion would look like (or be like). I was just throwing it out there. I also don't really know what religion brings to the table that is valuable. I'm guessing it brings some sense of community and (dare i say it) meaning to people's lives. Of course we can have those things without supernatural beliefs of any kind. I presume a naturalistic religion would not just be solely a system of rationalist ethics. For example, some sort of ceremony for major life events (name-giving, marriage - if you are into that kind of thing-, death) would seem to be worthwhile. You could also have some sort of narrative story (which i won't call a myth since that would confuse things) describing our place in the universe etc. Actually i think Dawkins does such a thing in Unweaving the Rainbow and the theme is prevalent in much of Sagan's work. Personally, i find this type of scientific narrative both fascinating and uplifting (but perhaps more importantly it does encourage one to think about what we know and how we know it and fosters curiosity about our world). A system of ethics (or a way of thinking about ethical issues) would also be a part of it.

On the whole, a 'naturalistic' religion would really just draw together various strands of existing methods of inquiry (all the following could be included: science, history, philosophy, literature and art).

Of course it is necessary to consider whether the word 'religion' should be ascribed to this system of beliefs at all. The word probably has too much intellectual and historical baggage. However, it could perhaps be useful to persuade those who are, by and large, secularist, rationalist and humanist, but who are (for some reason) reluctant to give up their traditional faiths. I'm not really sure what the best strategy would be - personally, i don't find any need for some community-based organisation which could be compared to religion (i can find all i need in other piecemeal institutions) but perhaps that's what some people need.

What i just wrote is probably incoherent since i did rush it - i apologise.

19. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Edd Doerr

Comment #58569 by TinyRobot on July 25, 2007 at 7:52 am

Just on the whole redefining religion to suit your needs issue. I came across the following today from Phillip Kitcher's book 'Living With Darwin' (OUP, 2007) at 132:

''Religion is itself an extradordinarily diverse and multifaceted phenomenon, emerging in different forms in different societies, and even assuming new identities in a changing historical and social context. At different times, and in different locations, the major religions of the world, Judaism and Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism, as well as Christianity, have all embraced very different conceptions of the religious life. Because of this, an enlightenment case against religion is likely to fail. Religious traditions can evolve, adapting themselves to the arguments presented so that the skeptics' attempts to define 'religion' once and for all are portrayed as limited and crude. Instead, I suggest, we should recognise an enlightenment case against a common strand within religious traditions, against supernaturalism.'

Don't know what people think about that (or Kitcher for that matter - anybody read Vaulting Ambition?). There does seem to be some case for accepting a totally naturalistic type of religion. I know Shelby Spong (mentioned in the above debate) advocates this but he seems unnecessarily tethered to Christianity which strikes me as being slightly odd for a naturalistic worldview. Loyal Rue suggests something similar in his book 'Religion is not about God'. I'd like to hear some responses to that type of argument up here.

On the whole historical Jesus point, has anybody read Bob Price's 'Incredible shrinking son of man'? I think the central (and plausible) point he made is that there could easily have been a 'wandering sage' like Jesus (or even perhaps with that name - although 'Jesus Christ' has a particular meaning something along the lines of 'redeemer') but the real issue for historical Jesus studies is whether any of the events recounted in the Gospel are attributable to this figure.

20. Response to the God Delusion

Comment #58134 by TinyRobot on July 23, 2007 at 3:46 pm

"For dawkins, the sky crane only brings up the fact of who made the sky crane."

You know i've thought about this one for a while. The problem is that people arguing in favour of theism like to 'prove' god by saying that everything must have a cause (or a designer - as Kant pointed out some time ago the cosmological and design argument often end up being the same thing). But they end up shooting themselves in the foot by positing something that doesn't need a cause, hence by the logic of their own argument the argument must fail.

In reality most theists don't care about the logic, they'd be happy to arrive at god by whatever means possible. Hence, the subsequent question of what caused him (the sky-hook) wouldn't bother them.

This, in a sort of response to j42lewis, is where TGD Chapter 4 comes in. I think Dawkins argument demonstrates (reasonably effectively) that, even if we ignore the logic of God needing a cause, God wouldn't be a good causal explantion of what exists in the world because he'd be infinitely more improbable than a simple naturalistic explanation. This also leads into the anthropic principle and the brute-fact or multiverse explantion (i think Dawkins, like myself, favours the brute-fact version) as being alternative explanations to that of god. Looking at the Anthropic principle it leads one to question why the laws of nature (or physics or whatever you want to call them) are fine-tuned for life. The brute-fact hypothesis is favoured because a fine-tuned universe is compatible with a naturalistic explantion (i.e. the brute-fact of the fine-tuning explains the existence of life so we don't need anything additional). Adding God (in a Christian or religious sense) is problematic because he/she would demand more than just fine-tuned natural laws.

I know that doesn't answer j42lewis's question of the logic of chapter 4 (in a more formalised sense) - i'd have to sit down and work that out but i think you have a good handle on it.

21. God '08: Whose, and How Much, Will Voters Accept?

Comment #58127 by TinyRobot on July 23, 2007 at 3:13 pm

''So if a candidate should say that there faith has no bearing on their political decisions, do we believe them or do you think they say that just to keep secularists from going up in arms?''

This is an interesting question to an extent. My response would be that if a candidate (or rather just a politician in general) can lay out the reasons for their policies, and if their reasons are ones that largely speak for themselves (as all good reasons should do). i.e. if they are willing to submit to an objectively debateable reasoning process (and i can disagree with them if they wish) then i don't care how their religion affects their decision-making. It's only if they say something like 'God says this is the way to do things and thats good enough for me' that i'd have a problem. Dan Dennett talked about this in an interview with charlie rose (i think! it's on google video somewhere). Rose was goading him a bit about the role of god in politics and, more importanly, decision-making. Dennett said 'My friend Alice says you're wrong!' 'Whose Alice?' 'A friend of mine, she's always right about everything'.

For anyone who doesn't get it, replace alice with God and you'll see the problem. It's only when the god card is played (with nothing to back it up) that the problem really arises. Incidentally that wasn't a transcript of the interview or anything, just the general gist of it.

The point is similar to that made above by danceswithanxiety. If the bible is to play any role at all in decision-making by the most powerful man in the world then it should only be to the extent that it accords with logic, evidence and reason (and it rarely does so).

22. Religion beat became a test of faith

Comment #57906 by TinyRobot on July 22, 2007 at 5:43 am

It's a bit unfair to attack him for not being smart enough. He has laid out his story and his reasons for losing (and originally gaining) his faith simply, effectively and with clarity. If he's interested in further exploring the merits of a naturalistic outlook then he can. I would support this guy not disparage him.

23. Convict sues God for broken contract

Comment #56964 by TinyRobot on July 18, 2007 at 1:07 am

Well at least they've rejected the idea of a personal god...it's a step in the right direction :-)

24. Convict sues God for broken contract

Comment #56962 by TinyRobot on July 18, 2007 at 1:06 am

Well at least they've rejected the idea of a personal god...it's a step in the right direction :-)

25. Kenya: The Death of Religion And Rise of Atheism in the West

Comment #56740 by TinyRobot on July 17, 2007 at 4:46 am

Obviously this article is riddled with non-sequiturs and poorly thought-out prose (i don't want to be too critical though since English is probably not his first language). It sounds like someone just ranting...

Anyway i'd love to know where he saw these women (and men) killing one another due to their insatiable lust for members of their own sex. What kind of nightclubs and pubs did he go to? My personal experience is that fights among males (heterosexual) are a dime a dozen on a saturday night. Why didn't he intervene or call some authorities or something? Did he just watch them die? I'm guessing the word 'killing' was just hyperbole, but if its true then it was hardly a Christian thing to just let it happen. Although, i guess homosexuals are unworthy of his respect.

There is also a strange paranoia apparent... like the West creating super-solidiers and Albert Einsteins to create super-atomic bombs to destroy Africa (or something along those lines - maybe the Gay Bomb would be more frightening for him?)

26. The New New Atheism

Comment #56577 by TinyRobot on July 16, 2007 at 1:05 pm

There are, of course, many things wrong with this article but just a couple of quick points:

1. There is a rather pathetic appeal to authority (since he's religious then we shouldn't be surprised) on at least two occasions - referring to McGrath's doctorate and Gould as a 'great paleontologist'. I think i heard James Randi give a good response to this type of argument once. It went something along the lines of 'just because Einstein was a great physicist/mathematician doesn't mean he knew how to make good toast'. Likewise with McGrath and Gould. Actually Randi has some good comments on PhDs too. Then again Dawkins (or maybe somebody else i'm not too sure) has said that Darwinism didn't make atheism inevitable, merely possible. Even if Darwinism is compatible with some form of religious belief, it certainly makes biblical literalism less respectable.

Which leads me to...

2. Berkowitz also comments that Hitchens is criticising a straw man with his biblical literalism. I'd hardly call the flesh and blood Creationist movement straw men (or indeed women although women should distance themselves from the association). Of course, i agree that it shouldn't be interpreted literally (nor should a constitution - actually i am a [PhD!!!!!!!] law student and i have some nuanced views on this whole area) but to simply assert that Hitchens is criticising a straw man demonstrates a peculiar attitude towards empirical reality.

3. The claim that religion had something to do with the principles of liberty and equality etc is extremely questionable (a case of special pleading methinks). AC Graylings 'What is Good?' deals with this pretty well and suggests the complete opposite to this article i.e. that most moral progress occurs in spite of religion and not because of. The notion of the Great Chain of Being (with its expressions in Western and Eastern cultures) is at its heart a religious idea and is certainly not on all fours with equality. Also liberty is hardly valued in religion, look at Muslim societies today, Christian Europe in the Middle Ages and certain parts of America today - there is hardly a commitment to the great ideals of liberty such as free speech, tolerance etc. Of course, many religious people can accommodate their beliefs within these SECULAR ideals, but that is all they are doing 'accommodating'.

4. Finally, on the whole Stalinism issue, Hitchens gave a pretty reasonable reply to this recently in an interview on Point of Inquiry. He said that atheism was a necessary but not sufficient condition for enlightenment - i.e. you can be an atheist and still believe all sorts of crazy things...like Gould and his Marxism perhaps.

27. An Atheist Responds

Comment #56371 by TinyRobot on July 15, 2007 at 10:36 am

Okay i haven't read all the posts here so i apologise if this repeats what someone else has said. On the whole issue of whether we need God for morality i think there are two separate issues. (1) Is the notion that we need the 'celestial dictatorship' to be good. This can, i would argue, easily be defeated. Kant had a pretty good analysis of this. There are, he said, two types of moral imperative. First, a 'hypothetical' imperative which assumes some desire before one can submit to the imperative i.e. if you desire A, do B. The second is the categorical imperative which holds regardless of the desires of the individual. As some other philosopher described it, this is a universalisable statement. Now the first type of religious argument is based around the hypothetical imperative - if you desire to get into heaven, then you must keep holy the sabbath day (or some similar statement).

The second type of religious argument (and the more sophisticated one) is based on the idea (2) that the existence of absolute rights and wrongs (like a categorical imperative) requires a god. I don't know why this argument has ever recommended itself to anyonne since it seems to assume that an absolute rule requires a rule-giver, but in such a scenario the 'rule' will invariably be of a necessary form and will reduce the rule-givers role to one of redundancy i.e. its truth conditions will be contained within itself. Actually Kant's categorical imperative would seem to fit this bill (although i've no doubt that many people will wish to dispute this e.g. is lying always wrong etc - but it should be borne in mind that these arguments against Kant are only attempts to give particular examples of the imperative). This whole issue was central to the Euthyphro dialogue.

Admittedly i wrote this pretty quickly so i probably haven't given a very good explanation of the underlying arguments (my eloquence. There is a pretty good article about all this available on the stanford online encyclopaedia of philosophy and i'd recommend it to anyone interested.

I'm just putting this out there since i'm sick of this whole moral argument for God constantly rearing its head.

28. Bill Moyers interviews E.O. Wilson

Comment #56183 by TinyRobot on July 14, 2007 at 10:37 am

Quoting Jan Chan:
It's quite unthinkable for modern science to reconcile with religion, unless the religion is willing to abandon all beliefs that it values

I don't think it's quite accurate to say that religion would have to abandon ALL the beliefs that it values. For many people, religion is about moral guidance and social cohesion. much of that would be compatible with a form of weak deism. . . which in my (anecdotal) experience is the position of most thoughtful religious people (then again i'm european and don't have much first hand experience of fundies).