1. Karma comedians

Comment #186732 by n0rr1s on May 31, 2008 at 8:25 am

And I thought Sharon Stone was supposed to be intelligent.

http://www.kids-iq-tests.com/famous-people/sharon-stone.html

2. Town moves against Islamic school

Comment #185007 by n0rr1s on May 26, 2008 at 4:58 pm

mordacious1, I see what you mean now.

I didn't mean violently, but then I didn't not mean violently either. I don't know how the "fighting" should work. I was just pointing out that the stakes will probably be a lot higher in the not-too-distant future.

3. Town moves against Islamic school

Comment #184993 by n0rr1s on May 26, 2008 at 4:24 pm

63. Comment #184979 by mordacious1

n0rr1s
Crusade Crusade Crusade

Pardon?

4. Town moves against Islamic school

Comment #184977 by n0rr1s on May 26, 2008 at 3:50 pm

58. Comment #184971 by qomak

Let's face it, muslim countries are third world countries with little resources to be of any serious threat.

That may be true now, but think ahead a bit. Technology advances rapidly - much faster than religions change. Technology gives more power to smaller, poorer groups of people. In the next few decades, those third world countries may start to possess nukes. Perhaps they will get weapons that are more difficult to defend against - bioweapons, nanoweapons, who knows what. Maybe small extremist groups will have them.

The point is, Islam needs to be fought now, because it will take a long time to change, and their potential for damage may grow quickly.

5. The Faith of Flanders

Comment #184278 by n0rr1s on May 24, 2008 at 9:23 am

My favourite clip from the Simpsons concerning religion:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=xdShHCyfUk4

EDIT: just noticed Mitchell mentioned this in the post above. Good timing!

6. Computer game's high score could earn the Nobel Prize in medicine

Comment #178596 by n0rr1s on May 11, 2008 at 5:04 pm

For those wanting a linux version...

I checked out this site a few days ago (can't get to it now - it is very slow). Their faq says they have a linux version, and are just looking for a way to package it that will work on any distribution. Meanwhile, some have had success running it under wine.

7. For sale: 13-year-old virgin

Comment #161022 by n0rr1s on April 14, 2008 at 5:07 pm

Henri

Having agreed that morals are an expression of desire, I can't then understand a few of the comments you've made. For example:

You commentators here are being very naive: you cannot judge another culture from your own culture's perspective.

A judgement is a statement of morality, therefore of desire. So why can I not pass judgement on other cultures? I can dislike the practices of other cultures.

'Human rights' is just a western notion that, like 'God', cannot be proven.

In other words, you're all acting like frenzied religious nutcases pushing your unjustified perspective on others.

That people should have human rights cannot be proven. But the establishment of human rights is a way of imposing our collective will on the world: most people desire that others not be abused and such. So why do you criticise those who react angrily to this story? They are simply expressing desire.

It would please many if I were a Christian; however, I am more far removed from that faith than you cultural Christians out here who don't believe in the Christian God but believe in Christian values.

Which values do you think are held by people on this site in common with Christians that you do not share?

8. For sale: 13-year-old virgin

Comment #160983 by n0rr1s on April 14, 2008 at 4:04 pm

Henri

No, I behave in 'moral' ways, but cannot rationally say that way is superior to the ways of a cold-hearted assassin.

I see. So a statement of your 'morals' is essentially a statement of your desires, right? That's what my morals are: when I say that I think an act is wrong, it's a shorthand for saying that either:
(a) I feel that I don't want it to happen, or
(b) I can derive its wrongness logically from another feeling and maybe some facts.
If I feel strongly enough, I may seek to impose that desire on the world.

Would you agree with that? Because if so, when stated that way, I think many others here might agree too.

9. For sale: 13-year-old virgin

Comment #160955 by n0rr1s on April 14, 2008 at 3:28 pm

Hello Henri

Your posts always interest me, but I don't completely understand what you're proposing. So I have a question, if you wouldn't mind: how do you go about making a decision in a situation in which the options affect (perhaps drastically) the lives of other people (or other conscious entities)?

10. 'Expelled' ripped off Harvard's 'Inner Life of the Cell' animation

Comment #159022 by n0rr1s on April 11, 2008 at 10:55 am

sarah95:

Whack-a-ID! I'd pay to play THAT game! Perhaps the closest one can get to paying for such a game is just donating to the NAS or NCSE. Oh well, it was a pleasant thought anyway...
(Would the whacker mallet be a "logic mallet"?)

You'd never him them with the logic mallet: it would go right over their heads.

You'll need to smack 'em with the clue bat, maybe even the trusty clue-by-four.

11. Fleabytes

Comment #140453 by n0rr1s on March 7, 2008 at 11:51 am

4112. Comment #140443 by scottishgeologist

Heres a proper resurrection for you - Lemmy style!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gV6noHEd6XE

While Motorhead links are being posted, these ones are quite appropriate for this site:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mq-CZG-V6I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MO0ZjSQjgZQ&feature=related

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

Comment #111474 by n0rr1s on January 14, 2008 at 5:54 pm

Inspiring story.

Best of luck with the operation, George. And thanks for supporting RDFRS.

13. The Moral Instinct

Comment #111311 by n0rr1s on January 14, 2008 at 9:30 am

al-rawandi, that site is hilarious! The second one (about thermodynamics) is particularly good. Loved this one too:

To say the Bible was written by men and may contain inaccuracies completely contradicts the word of the Bible.

EDIT: the site is also very sad and scary, as Steve mentioned.

14. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #91984 by n0rr1s on November 29, 2007 at 4:48 pm

Thank you Richard for writing this. I totally agree, but never see these type of views published. As usual, you write what is clearly true in opposition to the widely-held irrational beliefs. I also appreciate that you publish this knowing full well that the religious will try to use these arguments against you.

Great stuff.

15. Logical Path from Religious Beliefs to Evil Deeds

Comment #79725 by n0rr1s on October 18, 2007 at 10:36 am

172. Comment #79643 by steve99

I think Richard is saying that:
1. Incorrect premises lead to bad conclusions, and
2. Many religious beliefs are bad premises.

I think it is more subtle than that. The problem is that religion can bypass rational analysis. Instead of thinking things through, a believer just takes thing on faith.

Are you saying that "it is more subtle than that" in the real world, or that Richard's argument in this article is more subtle? I certainly agree with the former, but my brief summary was meant to be a summary of the ideas expressed in this particular article. I do think that religion often bypasses rational thought, and that believers take things on faith. But having done that, if they take those faith-derived axioms and apply logic, they can arrive at some nasty conclusions.

At least, that's what I got from the article.

16. Logical Path from Religious Beliefs to Evil Deeds

Comment #79722 by n0rr1s on October 18, 2007 at 10:24 am

171. Comment #79641 by brother john

Thank you for the further insight into how your religious beliefs motivate your views on animal welfare. I liked these bits in particular:

We limit our meat eating because both of us hate the cruelty that is involved in modern mass farming methods.

The underlings, whether citizens or animals pay the price for the political/ethical decisions of their "betters"!

I find it interesting that you do not think that the bible prescribes how animals should be treated, and that it is up to our own conscience. I hope that other religious people also see it that way.

17. Report on Hindu god Ram withdrawn

Comment #79414 by n0rr1s on October 17, 2007 at 8:09 am

31. Comment #79029 by epeeist

An army of monkeys would be awesome! I would take over the world! Cue maniacal cackling...

It didn't do the Wicked Witch of the West any good, anyway I bet you don't have a golden hat.

It didn't, and I don't. Damn. Back to the drawing board I guess...

18. Logical Path from Religious Beliefs to Evil Deeds

Comment #79359 by n0rr1s on October 17, 2007 at 3:53 am

167. Comment #79337

brother john, I agree with all of that.

You end with,"In summary, if you start from incorrect facts, your logical deductions will be wrong. That's all that's being said here." ..."facts"? Do you mean "facts and premisses"? If you are including premisses as well, I can agree with you.

Facts can't be incorrect: that's what makes them facts! So yes, I should have said "if you start with incorrect premises".

If that's all Richard is saying - fine. But I'm not not at all sure that "that's all that's being said here". It seems to me that the drive of Richard's piece is that faith is inherently going to result in evil deeds.

I think Richard is saying that:
1. Incorrect premises lead to bad conclusions, and
2. Many religious beliefs are bad premises.

I think we agree on both of these. (As an example of the second, I know you think revcort's premises are wrong). Of course, we will disagree on which premises are wrong, but I won't get into that here.

From there, it's a question of to what extent the bad conclusions are applied in real life. I'm sure Richard and others have a lot more to say about this than I. Not knowing enough about it, I won't get into that either.


By the way, as a vegan myself, it's good to hear you express concern for the plight of animals in your post 164. From what I remember of the bible, it seems to suggest that animals are here for humans to do with as they please. I guess, then, that given what you wrote on other threads, you would consider that a relic of a bygone age rather than a statement from God.

19. Logical Path from Religious Beliefs to Evil Deeds

Comment #79355 by n0rr1s on October 17, 2007 at 3:29 am

166. Comment #79318 by Eric Blair

Your Muslim example is, to me, not logical or persuasive. As far as we know, there are millions of Muslims who believe the Koran is literally true, yet only a tiny proportion have killed unbelievers. There's more at play here than simple faith -- it take more the logic of belief to slide down this slippery slope. And we know so little about any suicide bombers that coming to definitive conclusions about their motivation is impossible.

I wasn't trying to suggest what the real motivations for the suicide bombers were. I also wasn't suggesting that matters other than faith don't play a role in such acts.

Consider my example as hypothetical. I do think it is logical. If you accept that the Koran is literally true, logic dictates killing. The thought process might go something like:
The Koran is true,
therefore the parts about killing unbelievers are true,
A good person obeys the will of Allah,
I want to be a good person,
therefore I should kill unbelievers.

Note again that I'm not saying that any particular person followed this train of thought. I am saying that this train of thought is logical, and that the conclusion follows from the premises. Now, most people don't act entirely on the basis of logic, which is why all those who believe in the verbatim truth of the Koran don't kill.

As for Christians and homosexuality -- and I note Dawkins did not use this example – many Christians who believe homosexuality is a sin do not believe in gay-bashing or denying gays protection against discrimination. They just don't accept gay marriage (some simply balk at using the word). If this is "evil" in the sense that Dawkins uses it, it's on a lesser scale than blowing up airplanes.

Of course denying gay marriage is less evil than blowing up planes. But it is still wrong, and follows logically from the premise that the bible is literally true.

(Not to diminish the plight of gays but you might look for a better example to show how Dawkins' argument works for Christians.)

I'm sure there are much better examples, in the sense of the conclusions being more evil or more widespread in the real world. I chose my examples to illustrate the correctness of the point RD makes, not the magnitude of its effects.

20. Logical Path from Religious Beliefs to Evil Deeds

Comment #79222 by n0rr1s on October 16, 2007 at 1:59 pm

Hello again brother john.

I don't think anyone would dispute your points that emotional, political, social, and psychological factors play great roles in many evil deeds. What I think RD is claiming is that some evil deeds are perpetrated by people who are otherwise sane and good, and that it is religious beliefs plus logic that causes them to act in this way.

For example, let's take a nice, sane person who also happens to believe that the Koran is true. The Koran says believers are to be rewarded, and that unbelievers should be killed. From that starting point, it's a simple logical deduction for this person to start killing.

As another example, let's take a sane, good person who believes the bible is true (and I mean takes it all as the word of God, because I know you don't believe that). The bible makes statements against homosexuality, so this otherwise good person would be against gay rights, by simple logical deduction.

In summary, if you start from incorrect facts, your logical deductions will be wrong. That's all that's being said here.

21. Report on Hindu god Ram withdrawn

Comment #78968 by n0rr1s on October 15, 2007 at 2:45 pm

An army of monkeys would be awesome! I would take over the world! Cue maniacal cackling...

But seriously, just when you think you can't be surprised anymore at the stupid shit people believe, something like this comes along. And we're not just talking about a few nutters: it sounds like millions think this really happened. Wow.

5. Comment #78961 by Vendetta

Imagine what it would be like without all this nonsense.

Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
etc etc

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

Comment #74921 by n0rr1s on October 1, 2007 at 6:16 am

Obviously stem cell research and all the interference with scientific research that goes on [should stop].

Oops: that sentence seems to suggest that Richard thinks stem cell research should stop! We all know what he meant, of course.

Otherwise, can't see anything wrong with this article.

23. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #74759 by n0rr1s on September 30, 2007 at 9:59 am

By "the whole Jesus thing", I'm not sure whether you mean the question of whether Jesus existed at all, or whether Jesus was the son of God.

The existence of Jesus above all. Because what he did and said which includes his certified death (that was the spear in the side) and his resurrection are the whole basis for the Christian belief.

Whether or not a man called Jesus existed, and whether or not he is the son of God and performed the miraculous acts in the bible are 2 very different questions. It seems clear we are both interested in the second question.

Isn't the whole basis for your dismissal of my belief that, allegedly I have no evidence.

Yes, it is.

Furthermore, I don't need any evidence because I'm not making any claims.

Astonishing statement! I'm sure you're sincere when you say that, but you need to look at it. Use that intellect, that reasoning, that atheists think they have a monopoly to. Well get the monopoly going dear friend.
Thats what I meant by not evading the issue.

First, I certainly never said that atheists have a monopoly on intellect or reasoning.

I am not evading any issue. There is a difference between a positive claim and a denial of said claim based on lack of evidence. I'm not saying "there is no God". I am saying "I haven't seen any evidence for a God, and until I see some, I'm not going to believe in him". Surely you wouldn't ask me to present evidence against everything that I don't believe in? To use a frivolous example, I don't believe in pink unicorns because I haven't seen evidence for them. Would you ask that I present evidence against pink unicorns before stating my disbelief? If someone claims that they exist then I'll believe in them as soon as I see the evidence.

If I claim there's a mugger with a knife round the corner and you say, There is not – Are you excused from saying, Not important. I'm not making any claims. Just because it's in the form of a negative does not mean that it is a very significant statement with positively life changing consequences.

To make this analogy closely represent the question that we're discussing, I would have to have a really good reason for wanting to go around this corner. Then, if you say there's a mugger there, I'm going to want you to substantiate that claim. If you never saw the mugger and had no evidence whatsoever that he was there, then I would assume the likely case that he wasn't. Notice that I didn't prove there was no mugger there, and couldn't do so, but that was ok because I had no reason to believe that a mugger existed: there was no evidence.

Your disinterest in Jesus IS making a claim.

I am interested, if I can see the evidence.

You are claiming that Jesus did not claim he was God's son.

I am not. Jesus may well have claimed that. But again, I'll need to see evidence for it.

You are claiming that his actions of power over nature do not stand as some sort of very clear claim that here is a man who is totally unique.

I claim only that there is no evidence for these "actions of power".

You are claiming that his resurrection means nothing, no more relevant to human life than a leaf falling off a tree.

No, it would definitely be relevant, if it happened. Again, I see no evidence that it did.

You ae claiming that the movement that followed from him – and is still here 2000 years later (and is not in a process of dying but of being renewed) is insignificant.

The movement is very significant. I wouldn't bother arguing against it otherwise.

Am I not thinking logically?
Or are you not thinking logically.
Or are we both wrong? orRight.
It does seem to me that I'm far more based on reason than you are.

I think I'm right, of course - I wouldn't post otherwise.

But of course I would say that wouldn't I? No I wouldn't.

I think you just did ;)

That's not the kind of man I am. If I catch myself out being wrong, unfair, illogical or whatever, I pull myself up.

I do too. In the short time I've been posting here, I've already admitted being wrong a few times.

24. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #74737 by n0rr1s on September 30, 2007 at 7:43 am

WHAT IS YOUR EVIDENCE FOR SAYING THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR THE WHOLE JESUS THING ?

By "the whole Jesus thing", I'm not sure whether you mean the question of whether Jesus existed at all, or whether Jesus was the son of God. If the former, I don't know nearly enough to answer that question. I have seen others talk about it, so maybe somebody else will take up that one.

But to me, only the latter question matters, so: what evidence do I have that Jesus wasn't the son of God (or indeed that God does not exist at all)? I have none, of course! Furthermore, I don't need any evidence because I'm not making any claims. However, you are making some extraordinary claims: that there is a God, and Jesus was his son, and Jesus performed miracles, etc. The only evidence there appears to be for this is a book written a long time ago, itself written a long time after the supposed events. That's pretty tenuous evidence (to say the least) for such extraordinary claims. I wouldn't even believe that, say, a miracle had occurred if my best friend told me so! For me to believe those things, I'm going to need evidence that I can see with my own eyes.

Wouldn't you agree that extraordinary claims require hard evidence?

25. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #74708 by n0rr1s on September 30, 2007 at 3:58 am

brother john

You're already spending considerable time posting when you've no doubt many other things to do, so I won't respond to many of the points you've raised - others are already doing so, and I won't add to your work load. I will, of course, reply if you choose to answer my previous questions. But I will respond to this:

When I first came to the forum sites I was almost shocked by the wrangling,, what sometimes seemed quite a nasty tone. (To an extent I was over-reacting. But, I say this in love to you a dear brother in Christ, if we go too hard too full on with our beliefs, our texts, we may alienate.

I say: just lay it all out here, full on. If you do it politely (and I know you will), then you'll get (mostly) polite responses. You'll get hard rational debate, of course, but then you did say that your religion must stand up to criticism. And you can't really alienate us from religion since the vast majority around here are atheists.

26. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #74517 by n0rr1s on September 29, 2007 at 8:14 am

907. Comment #74432 by brother john

Wow, brother john, you sure do like to write! Thank you for taking the time to answer in such depth.

To recap, I said this:

But I think that religion is an impediment to this because:
(a) It seems to teach things that to me are most immoral, and
(b) It may encourage people to take their morals from a book, without thinking, rather than coming to their own conclusions.

So I'm interested to know, what would you do if you felt strongly about a particular moral issue, but the bible specifically contradicted your position?

I agree that "cultural development" happens, and that it has lead to considerable advances in moral behaviour. I also agree that the bible contains much in the way of records about the cultures of the times. So when you ask:

Do you see, as I do,nOrris, that this principle, this fact, of CULTURAL EVOLUTION/DEVELOPMENT solves a lot of the objections that are thrown at the Bible?

... then I agree, it does solve many (but not all, as I'll get to in a moment) of the objections levelled at the bible, and in particular, it answers my questions.

However, whereas other christians would take all of the bible literally, it seems that you take only certain parts of it literally: those parts that you believe are revelation. This both suggests some further questions, and prompts me to restate my original question but focussing on the sections of the bible containing revelation:

1. What would you do if you felt strongly about a particular moral issue, but an area of the bible that you believed to contain revelation specifically contradicted your position?

I suspect I already know your answer to this. I'm guessing you're going to say that you haven't found such a discrepancy, and don't expect to. If so, what about this:

2. How do you know which parts of the bible are revelations, and which are records?

And, given your comments about Abraham's tribe developing their understanding of God:

3. Why do you trust the bible's statements about the way God revealed himself? The bible was, after all, written a long time after these events.

Yup, you guessed it, the atheists are asking for evidence again. If you've been reading this site for only a short time, you must have known that was coming :)

27. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #74037 by n0rr1s on September 27, 2007 at 5:35 am

brother john

I can certainly agree with you that if everyone makes the best effort to follow their conscience then the world will become a better place. But I think that religion is an impediment to this because:
(a) It seems to teach things that to me are most immoral, and
(b) It may encourage people to take their morals from a book, without thinking, rather than coming to their own conclusions.

So I'm interested to know, what would you do if you felt strongly about a particular moral issue, but the bible specifically contradicted your position?

28. There Go The Dinosaurs

Comment #73805 by n0rr1s on September 26, 2007 at 8:24 am

52. Comment #73778 by Cartomancer

Interesting post - I can empathise with much of that. I haven't been assessed for any autistic spectrum disorder, but I share some of the described symptoms. I have a slight obsession with neatness/symmetry and a tendency to count things. I can process emotional responses, but I get very anxious in many social situations and often avoid them.

As with you, I think these tendencies do predispose me to atheism, primarily for these reasons:
1. The simplicity and structure of logical thinking is perfectly suited to the way my mind works.
2. I feel most uncomfortable when I'm told to simply believe that something is true without justification.
3. I am not affected by any group mentality, because I rarely feel part of any group.

29. Review of Darwin's Angel

Comment #70358 by n0rr1s on September 15, 2007 at 3:53 am

steve99, thanks for pointing that out. I was under the impression that wherever parallel universes were proposed, they were causally disconnected from our own. It seems that's not the case, and I have some reading to do. Sorry for the misinformation.

30. Review of Darwin's Angel

Comment #70154 by n0rr1s on September 14, 2007 at 8:09 am

At risk of going off topic...

4. Comment #70134 by hfaber

Parallel universes and superstrings in the 11th dimension have never directly been observed but there is solid science about this stuff. Logic is the part that is lacking in the above citation. Religion utterly fails the test of logic.

The difference between the strings in other dimensions and the assertions of religions is that string theory will be tested when we have the technology, and will stand or fall based on those tests. It is interesting that you mention parallel universes, because I think they belong in the same category as religions: they can, in principle, never be tested, and so have no place in science.

31. Review of Darwin's Angel

Comment #70145 by n0rr1s on September 14, 2007 at 7:57 am

Cornwell does, however, start to get sucked in to Dawkins's fact-based approach. And religion is hard to fit in to that agenda, for it simply isn't about facts.

So he is either a deist or a believer in a god of the gaps - weak positions in my opinion, but we can't disprove them. But I think that ends the discussion, so long as he doesn't start to extend his god into the natural world where it does contradict the facts.

You cannot prove God exists because religion is not primarily about belief, as we understand the word today, but faith. Dawkins would call it blind faith. It is an intuition, a sense of something more than meets the eye, a glimpse of transcendence, of a higher purpose, but nothing more tangible.

Come on, that's just dishonest. The beliefs of the religious are far more concrete than that. I can empathise with someone who says they have "a sense of something more than meets the eye", but to use this to claim there is a god, and he wants me to behave in a certain way, and that praying to him causes him to intervene in my life, and that I'm going to heaven when I die, that miracles occur, and so on... To claim all those precise statements on the basis of intuition is clearly ridiculous.

32. Interview with Francis Collins

Comment #68952 by n0rr1s on September 9, 2007 at 8:36 am

There's something deeply disappointing about the religious scientist. It's like an olympic gymnast who can't catch, or a top chef who eats at McDonalds. They really ought to know better.

33. Bonobo Handshake: What Makes Our Chimp-like Cousins So Cooperative?

Comment #67951 by n0rr1s on September 5, 2007 at 10:42 am

Somebody's going to say it, might as well be me...

What's it like to work with relatives who think sex is like a handshake, who organise orgies with the neighbours

Pretty damn fantastic, I would imagine.

34. Polling Data on Science and Religion

Comment #67122 by n0rr1s on September 2, 2007 at 3:19 am

1. Some scientists start with the belief that only the natural world exists.

No scientist does that.

How could you possibly make such an assertion about the beliefs of all scientists? It's patently wrong.

Ok, my statement was imprecise (and therefore wrong). I should have said that science itself does not start with this belief. It matters not what any scientist believes to be true, the scientific method will force them to re-evaluate those beliefs if they are wrong. If they do not adhere to the scientific method, they will quickly lose credibility. If evidence against a belief comes to light, it will be judged by the whole scientific community. In this way, truth is established by evidence, and a priori assumptions are eschewed.

35. Polling Data on Science and Religion

Comment #67079 by n0rr1s on September 1, 2007 at 6:17 pm

Comment #67049 by devolved

The conflict isn't between science and religion but between two differing interpretations of past events.

I beg to differ.

1. Some scientists start with the belief that only the natural world exists.

No scientist does that.

2. Anything that appears to contradict that belief (e.g., supports an historical record that indicates the reality of the supernatural) therefore must be false.

First of all, this is false because your first point is false. Plus, there is no historical record that indicates the reality of the supernatural. If you have some, please share.

1. Other scientists start with the belief that the Bible is literally true...

Using any accepted definition of the word "scientist", no scientist does that either. Certainly many non-scientists do, although it is clearly a ridiculous assumption to make.

So no, there isn't a conflict between "two differing interpretations of past events". There really is a conflict between between religion and science.

36. Polling Data on Science and Religion

Comment #66928 by n0rr1s on September 1, 2007 at 2:51 am

Comment #66861 by Yorker

In the long-term what religites believe is irrelevant, science isn't going to stop because everybody needs it

I really hope you are right about that: science is my hope for the future. However, the religites can significantly slow down progress, and when they do, many suffer as a result.

This, imo, is the main reason why the work of RD and co is so important (as opposed to convincing anyone that faith is a poor philosophy), and why I am very grateful to them for it. Most of the problems in the world can be solved by science, and it is therefore vital that it continue unfettered by the religious. I think very few religious people will understand what RD says, but by being vocal, we may gain more tolerance for atheists and a better climate in which science can thrive.

Imho, I think religion will remain as prevalent as it is now until people start getting smarter... which will happen when people start augmenting their own intelligence using the products of science.

37. Shop targets U.S. hunters with camo Bibles

Comment #65549 by n0rr1s on August 24, 2007 at 6:02 pm

Hunting and religion coming together - 2 of the most loathesome activities I can think of. Makes me sick.

38. Feeding the fear gene

Comment #65462 by n0rr1s on August 24, 2007 at 9:49 am

geckoman, oarwhat: sure, taking some weaponry to the Jehovah's witnesses might be a giggle. But for maximum fun, invite them in and subject them to some logic. Watch 'em squirm. They never seem to come back after that...

39. Feeding the fear gene

Comment #65461 by n0rr1s on August 24, 2007 at 9:45 am

The problem of unscrupulous reporting is a big one. Even if everyone were capable of employing the scientific method in their reasoning, nobody has the time to become an expert in every field of knowledge, and unless you actually read the scientific papers yourself, you're going to have to take a lot of things on trust. Understanding how to reason can help you decide who to trust, and to spot obvious flaws in arguments, but you can still get fooled if the author is somewhat skilled at deception. I find it difficult to judge the merits of articles on which I know little about the controversial topic, such as global warming or, when circumcision is an appropriate medical treatment.

Of course, as things are, the mass media is most people's only source of information. I think they see them as an authority, and accept whatever they hear. Unfortunately, I have no idea how we can force journalists to behave responsibly.

I am reminded of a poem that I just read by Humbert Wolfe. It seems fitting here:

You cannot hope to bribe or twist,
Thank God, the British journalist.
But seeing what the man will do
Unbribed, there's no occasion to.

40. Sleights of Mind

Comment #64665 by n0rr1s on August 21, 2007 at 7:56 am

I don't understand how Dan Dennett can suggest that consciousness is an illusion. My experiences are clearly real to me; in fact, they are the only thing that I can be sure is real. I don't see how the analogy with magic is valid: in magic, the brain is piecing together cause and effect, so where is the system in the physical world that is interpolating the mechanisms of my brain to give rise to consciousness?

However, I haven't read Dan's book yet, so maybe he explains it more precisely and persuasively there.

The question of consciousness is fascinating, with some very smart people (including Dan Dannett) with contradictory ideas. I look forward eagerly to the development of this field in the coming years.

Oh, and the magicians sound great. I've never seen them live - would love to do so.

41. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #64331 by n0rr1s on August 19, 2007 at 3:32 pm

I think we're on the same page, Veronique.

Just a couple of things to add:

What's the 'best result' achieved on these threads? I can't recall, but is there anyone who has learnt to argue rationally about irrationally held beliefs here?

I don't know what the best result is - I'm pretty new around here - but I think I'm already learning a little about how to argue against the irrational. I have some scientific training, but I don't think quickly on my feet and I'm none too eloquent. I've been in the situation a few times where I'm having what appears to be a rational discussion with a believer, and then they'll suddenly say something so mind-bogglingly irrational that I'll stutter and be lost for words. My background hasn't equipped me to deal with that situation. Reading the replies on here, and listening to Richard and co's responses to questions, I'll probably do better next time.

Good on you and the others for being so patient. I can, but I have a far shorter fuse than you guys:-)

Despite the fact that I don't advocate it, I do enjoy hearing some purveyor of nonsense get a good tongue-lashing... because I know that's what I'd really like to do ;)

42. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #64314 by n0rr1s on August 19, 2007 at 2:15 pm

279. Comment #64283 by Veronique

Thanks for the long and thoughtful reply.

I think the question of how to deal with people who don't understand a rational argument is an interesting one, because I don't think the answer is obvious (unlike the question of whether god exists ;)). Learning how to deal with these people is one of the reasons I like listening to Richard and co.

What makes you think that Darwin2 will ever grow up into reason?

I think it highly unlikely that he will. I didn't mean to suggest otherwise.

Don't try to tell me that the rest of you don't get pissed off.

I certainly won't try to tell you that. I get wildly pissed off all the time with the unbelievably dumb stuff that I hear and read every day. That's another reason that I've taken to reading this site: it's nice to remind myself that not everybody in the world is insane! However, when I have the opportunity to respond to the crazy, I try to suppress all that and respond in a way that achieves the best result.

Explain to me why I should be considerate of such twaddlers and their twaddle.

I can't do that, but I can explain why I try to do so. It comes down to what I think we're trying to achieve. I think it is impossible to make most irrational people see sense. The most I think we can hope for - and I think this is something like what Richard is aiming at - is:
1. Spread rational ideas so that those people who are receptive get to hear them.
2. Make the world a better and more tolerant place for atheists to live.

I think that the first goal is advanced by challenging wooly thinking wherever it is encountered. And I think that in general, if we make our points politely (but firmly), our opinions will be invited more often, allowing us to reach more people.

I think a more considerate approach also helps the second goal. If we recognise that despite the best efforts of Richard and co, most of the world will continue to believe their myths, the next best result is for the rest of the world to be tolerant of us. This is most likely to happen if we're nice to them.

Basically, I'm saying that I think it best to be considerate to the irrational people, despite wanting to scream at them, because it achieves the best result in most cases. If anyone disagrees, I'd be interested to hear why.

43. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #64260 by n0rr1s on August 19, 2007 at 4:53 am

Veronique, I think you are being too hard on darwin2. I think he comes here for the same reason others do: he thinks he understands something important and that other people need to hear it.

Now, he is quite clearly wrong, and provably so. Unfortunately, he is clearly incapable of understanding the arguments. Therefore, I think it is pointless to debate with him at this point. However, I would welcome him to stay around here and continue to read the site. You never know, at some point the penny may drop, and he may begin to understand what it means to think rationally.

darwin2, if you're reading this, you're probably thinking that I've been quite arrogant and patronising in dismissing your intellectual abilities. I do not mean to insult you. But what I've said is true, and I can see no way of saying it that wouldn't sound insulting.

44. Atheists and believers have got religion wrong

Comment #63614 by n0rr1s on August 15, 2007 at 5:02 am

Mark says that many atheists are "smug and superior". That's ironic, because while I've often found Mark to be interesting and entertaining, on the few occassions he is wrong, the tone he uses causes him to appear to me in just that way. I have the same issue with Penn and Teller in one or two of their BS shows. And I think that Mark is wrong here.

First, I can't really speak for other atheists, but I do not think that religious people are stupid. I think that religious people are being stupid about religion. There is a big difference. I have observed that people can be extremely smart about one thing, while being considerably less than smart about another, even if the two things appear closely related. I know I have this failing.

Also, I think that few atheists are so blind to conditions around the world that they think that people in the grip of poverty are being ignorant by not having read, say, Voltaire.

And I disagree that "there's always a rational basis to the irrationality of religion". Sure, the religious will shape their faith somewhat based on the situation they have to deal with. And much of the muslim world has legitimate greivances with the west because of, say, the actions of GWB. But Mark seems to be using this to suggest that all religion is based on the prevailing conditions in people's lives, and therefore that it is rational. I say that religions are still based on texts that are thousands of years old, and there's only so much interpretation that one can do, only so much leeway that the texts allow. Religions were not invented because of today's conditions, and their tenets mostly do not reflect today's conditions. I do not think that they are rational.