1. Oystein Elgaroy - the Christian defender who became an Atheist

Comment #195410 by bucketchemist on June 18, 2008 at 7:26 am

"It is not the gaps in our understanding of the world that point to God, but rather the comprehensibility of scientific and other forms of understanding that requires an explanantion. In brief the argument is that explicability itself requires explanation"

I think what McGrath was godsmacked by is the same at that which rocked Einstein's world.

"The eternal mystery of the world is its comprehensibility…The fact that it is comprehensible is a miracle."
- Albert Einstein, quoted in Calaprice, p. 197 from Ideas and Opinions, p. 272
Calaprice, Alice, The Quotable Einstein (Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 1996).

Of course for Einstein that was the start of his thinking whereas for McGrath it is clearly the end.

2. The 14-year-old Afghan suicide bomber

Comment #191818 by bucketchemist on June 11, 2008 at 10:28 pm

N.B.: al and I are NOT the same person.

My mistake, sorry about that.

3. The 14-year-old Afghan suicide bomber

Comment #191552 by bucketchemist on June 11, 2008 at 7:53 am

al

that bed is the product of the religion they value so highly - and now they can lie in it.

I would say that there is a lot more wrong with those cultures than the religion, although Islam certainly provides justification for atrocities, and fault-lines across which the good can be divided from the bad.

there's no evidence - nada, zip, zilch - that those Muslims who flee from the hellholes their religion has created have any ambition other than to bring their desolation with them

As Christopher Hitchens might put it; "Three words, Ayaan Hirsi Ali."

4. The 14-year-old Afghan suicide bomber

Comment #191523 by bucketchemist on June 11, 2008 at 6:04 am

My suggestion was to withdraw our forces from Muslim regions, namely Iraq

Completely agree. Combined with a relaxed policy on political refugees, so that anyone who wants to abandon that culture in favour of a more tolerant etc western model can. Plus, an offer of military assistance to Iraq (or wherever) to protect their borders from other states who might wish to adopt a more interventionist stance.

5. The 14-year-old Afghan suicide bomber

Comment #191023 by bucketchemist on June 10, 2008 at 5:59 am

gut them like pigs

Or alternatively, behave like decent human beings.

We all feel hate and disgust sometimes but acting in the way you suggest is a perpetuation of the same evil, albeit without giving these feelings a name and elevating them to the status of a deity.

6. The 14-year-old Afghan suicide bomber

Comment #191018 by bucketchemist on June 10, 2008 at 5:52 am

Whilst it is true the young man was well aware he would end the lives of others - the question is whether or not he had been manipulated to the point of not knowing it was wrong.

I suspect part of the problem is not one of knowing whether it was wrong or right, but of being so certain of the knowledge one has that one is willing to carry out such a horrendous act. Personally I would prefer it if there was a lot more doubt, dilemma, and dithering in the world.

7. Scientists rally against creationist 'superstition'

Comment #187231 by bucketchemist on June 1, 2008 at 2:48 pm

The "evolution theory" 48
The "creationism theory" 22
The "intelligent design theory" 17

Only one of these is a theory. One of the others is an uninformed guess originally made by Bronze Age shepherds who were scared of the dark. The other is a carefully constructed situationist joke invented by the Merry Pranksters (although they haven't owned up to it yet).

8. Scientists rally against creationist 'superstition'

Comment #187039 by bucketchemist on June 1, 2008 at 7:16 am

Or maybe the response should be 'believe what the hell you like, but this job/role/position/whatever requires you to act as if evolution was true, and if you ever bring those beliefs into the workplace you're out of a job'. This is pretty much what Mother Theresa of Calcutta apparently did for most of her life, from what I understand. Even though she didn't feel the presence of god in her life, the job she had required her to act as she did.

Beliefs - overrated in my opinion.

9. Scientists rally against creationist 'superstition'

Comment #187035 by bucketchemist on June 1, 2008 at 7:08 am

Steven Jones was on BBC Radio 4 during the week and mentioned being accosted by students and told that evolution was 'a lie' and conflicted with their religion. He made it clear that these were Islamic students, although I don't know how significant this might be. He went on to say that he then asked them a series of questions along the lines of 'Do you believe that Mendel discovered this fact about peas?', 'Do you accept that flu germs mutate over time?', 'Do you believe that moths have been selected for specific coloration?' etc. to which the students answered 'yes' to each question. He kept asking them evolution -dependent questions, ramping them up each time until they were basically agreeing to every finding and tenet of evolutionary theory, and yet they still claimed that 'evolution is a lie'. A very elegant way of approaching the problem I thought, which also indicated where it is really located; not in any rational part of the student/believers cognition at all but in their fundamental resistance to letting go of that one meme.

10. Louisiana's latest creationism bill moves to House floor

Comment #185477 by bucketchemist on May 27, 2008 at 10:25 pm

This seems to me to support Dennett's proposal that religion be taught in schools. Not in science classes of course, but since religion is clearly extremely important to a vast number of people and is embedded into western culture to such an extent its absence from the school curriculum is creating problems. I suspect that there would be less pressure to include it within science classes if its existence (although not necessarily its truth) was validated elsewhere.

11. Does Time Run Backward in Other Universes?

Comment #184199 by bucketchemist on May 23, 2008 at 10:52 pm

So, if there are universes in which time is reversed, that means that in those universes very complex phenomena can precede the existence of simple phenomena. Dawkins was wrong, Teilhard de Chardin was right, there is a God, its just that in this universe he/she/it appears at the end of time whereas elsewhere he/she/it is at the beginning.

12. Indian village proud after double 'honor killing'

Comment #181547 by bucketchemist on May 17, 2008 at 12:18 pm

I see where you are going, and I am not sure I disagree but just to be pushing the definition here goes. Is rational the right word for what likely amounts to an instinctive urge to go along with the social order in which you find yourself? I think it may matter what exactly is driving the behavior in these situations.

You're right, I don't think rational is the right word, although I can't think of a better one. I am not sure that instinct can be brought in entirely though; I can certainly imagine this kind of action emerging from a cold calculation of pros and cons. In a society which values 'honour' to the extent that that one seems to, underpinned presumably by religious belief, such an evaluation could easily lead to a rational decision to kill a loved one.

13. Indian village proud after double 'honor killing'

Comment #181381 by bucketchemist on May 17, 2008 at 4:54 am

going against common consensus, moral or Zeitgeist is only noble when it leads to an advance. The opposite direction can hardly be called moral. Leaning up against society doesn't make your actions truly moral by default. Comparing brute murderers in our time with the Ghandi and Jesus of their times seems to me like an argument that fails the moment you give it some thought.

I don't think I was comparing anyone to Jesus or Ghandi, and certainly not murderers. What I was trying to say is that, historically, what is clearly both moral and rational today would one have been neither (as Dawkins himself suggests). This also applies cross-culturally; without wishing to suggest cultural relativism, to be moral in a society with different morals would require one to act irrationally.

14. Indian village proud after double 'honor killing'

Comment #181337 by bucketchemist on May 17, 2008 at 1:00 am

Vergil

If I came across in the way you suggest then I unreservedly apologise for that. My comment was not intended as a criticism of other valued posters but was aimed at the use of the term 'rational' as a critique of behaviour which, in context, is not necessarily irrational at all from an adaptive, social perspective. I am saying that sometimes, to be moral one has to be irrational.

MaxD
I wasn't really referring to religious conviction as a factor in the construction of morality (positively or negatively) but I do think there is a connection, albeit a variable one. Certainly if a piece of religious dogma is inculcated into the fabric of a society then obedience to that dogma will coincide with 'rational' behaviour in that society (which may be a factor in the OP). On the other hand, religious ideas may provide some kind of justification for extremely moral actions which break the taboos of a society, which may endanger the life of the actor, and which, from an adaptive perspective, are highly irrational.

I suppose where I am going with this is that there are two understanding of 'rational' which I see as sometimes confused. Firstly there is rational in the empirical scientific sense, in which beliefs, and actions following from those beliefs must be supported by evidence (religion is bogus so religious practices are irrational). Secondly there is rational in the adaptive, social, cultural sense, in which it is understood as behaviour which ensures genetic survival (religion is what the rest of my social group practice so my practicing of it is rational). It seems to me that one of the tasks of scientific enlightenment is to bring these two understandings more into alignment.

15. Indian village proud after double 'honor killing'

Comment #181318 by bucketchemist on May 16, 2008 at 10:57 pm

Several posters refer to this action as 'irrational', but I'm not sure if that is the case. Rational behaviour, surely, is that which is most appropriate to the circumstances in which it operates, and is only tangentially related to morality. In terms of pragmatic, rational, appropriate action and responses, I don't think there is much to criticise here. Having said that, and in case this sounds like an argument for moral relativism or undue intercultural tolerance, I am of course as appalled as I should be by this event.

Just to return to morality briefly, there may be a case to be made that moral positions and actions are often defined by their being irrational when judged against the temper of their times. I'm thinking here about Wilberforce, Ghandi, maybe Jesus, etc. For the parents of these two poor people to act truly morally, in this aspirational sense, they would have to reject the rational responses demanded by their cultural circumstances. This would be an incredibly noble thing to do, but also a difficult one, and I don't know how far we should condemn their failure in this regard.

16. Pelosi, Reid shunning Ten Commandments?

Comment #181314 by bucketchemist on May 16, 2008 at 10:33 pm

Hardly. More lying for Jesus.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/capital.asp

There are pictures too.

One of the friezes includes a representation of Mohamed. Should we be concerned?

17. Is Science Killing the Soul?

Comment #180831 by bucketchemist on May 15, 2008 at 11:13 pm

A minor semantic point, but it seems to make a huge difference when the definite article 'the', or even the indirect article 'a', is put in front of the term 'soul'. James Brown most likely did not have 'a soul' but no-one would dispute he had 'soul'.

18. 'Spiritual' dentist fined $10,000

Comment #180185 by bucketchemist on May 14, 2008 at 10:52 am

I had one of my most mystical experiences ever at the dentist's office one time. It involved a whole hell of a lot of nitrus oxide and a cheesy poster of a polar bear stapled to the ceiling. I became that polar bear, man. It was wild.

Funnily enough, I did have a wierd, out-of-body experience at the dentist when I was a kid. Made a profound impact on me which I still feel affected by in a way. No god involved however.

19. Scientists Know Better Than You--Even When They're Wrong

Comment #178216 by bucketchemist on May 10, 2008 at 11:29 pm

heir major contention is that the question of the existence of God has become one of science, not theology.

I don't think there is much doubt that god(s) exist, although obviously not as physical, empirically available entities but cultural, linguistic, and cognitive constructs. The nature of this existence should, it seems to me, be a question for anthropology, psychology, sociology, neuroscience, linguistics, and aesthetics. I can easily imagine an interdisciplinary programme of study bringing insights from those areas together which would be a kind of theology, although probably quite different to how the subject currently exists. Actually, I can imagine many of the debates on this site contributing to content of that programme. "God for Atheists 101".

20. Scientists Know Better Than You--Even When They're Wrong

Comment #177917 by bucketchemist on May 10, 2008 at 12:39 am

A quick follow-up to my previous post. I think it is interesting that the article cites a kind of golden age of scientific authority, located in the white coated fifties. That was also around the time that C.P. Snow was drawing attention to what he saw as 'Two Cultures', in which traditional intellectual activity (with the inherited authority that comes with it) was grounded in the humanities, with science and technology having a more menial role in culture and thought. It may be that science at that time was 'allowed' to have dominion over its own area of authority because there was less insecurity within the ranks of the traditional intellectuals that their own areas might be marginalised. That is much less the case today, when empiricism tends to be the default setting for not only scientific authority but credibility in all areas.

21. Scientists Know Better Than You--Even When They're Wrong

Comment #177898 by bucketchemist on May 9, 2008 at 11:28 pm

I keep wondering why nobody ever writes a popular account of this wonderful, marvelous, subtle theology we have been hearing about ever since TGD came out ? Sure it's going to be tough for people like us to understand but people like Richard do a wonderful job of explaining science to the lay person. Surely someone can bring down theology to a level we can understand?

I would agree with this, apart from the necessity to dumb down theology (since much of it is dumb enough already). There is a valid criticism to be made, I believe, that some atheist writings treats religion as if it aspired to the same epistemological status as the empirical sciences, which it could never do, and most 'thoughtful theologians' rightly join atheists in criticising efforts such as I.D. for taking this line. Theology can obviously make no contribution at all to a practice which is based on falsification and the ideal scientific method, and it is unfortunate to say the least, that theologians do feel at liberty to weigh in on issues that are better addressed using evidential methods. Empirical science isn't the only game in town though, and there are many areas of human activity which overlap with spirituality and religion. Personally I try to look at theology as a branch of the creative and performing arts, with all of the triviality and profundity that comes with that. I suspect also that large parts of sociology, psychology, philosophy, ethics, poetics, aesthetics, etc would also be incomplete without a recognition of this weirdness. I suppose what I am saying is that when theologians say that the god criticised by atheists is unrecognisable to them they may have a point, although in bringing their god to the debating chamber, the laboratory or the school science classroom they have joined us in this misrecognition.

22. Truly Bizarre : Indians Throw Babies 50ft From Roof To Thank God.

Comment #174950 by bucketchemist on May 3, 2008 at 11:44 pm

Completely barking of course, although having said that I would love to be able to say that I had been thrown off a building when I was a baby. It would be kind of like a physical enactment of being 'cast into the world' which some philosophy talks about, with the addition of there being a crowd of people waiting to catch you. I suppose that is the aim of the grown-up games of trust that you find. This is in my mind right now because my wife gave me for my (significant) birthday this year a voucher for a bungie jump.

23. Police: Girl Dies After Parents Pray for Healing Instead of Seeking Medical Help

Comment #149822 by bucketchemist on March 26, 2008 at 9:08 am

Solution: Give Mum and Dad lethal injections and let them pray their way out of that.

24. Selling science to the masses

Comment #144397 by bucketchemist on March 16, 2008 at 12:18 am

One of the problems, as I see it, is the perceived gap between science and 'normal' thinking. As long as science is purely associated with white coats and chemical formulae then a large number of people are going to feel disenfranchised. T.H. Huxley wrote a really nice article called 'We are All Scientists' drawing out the routine use we all make every day of the same ways of thinking which characterise science. I would say that getting people to feel ownership of the scientific method, and to recognise the power that it has in their own lives, would be a positive step.

25. How to abandon your God

Comment #139563 by bucketchemist on March 6, 2008 at 5:05 am

Maybe you abandon God by realizing it is all humans, all animals, all plants, all seas, all rocks, all stars, all milky ways , all stuff , all ordinary ...

I guess what he is kind of calling for is not so much a redefinition of god, since any definition this broad would be meaningless, but a dispositional shift such that the attitude religious people bring to their god is smeared across the natural world; Einstein's God in other words. This is the approach that Ursula Goodenough adopts in 'The Sacred Depths of Nature'. Pantheistic, maybe; ordinary, no.

26. Are they running for President or Pastor-in-Chief?

Comment #134516 by bucketchemist on February 27, 2008 at 11:34 pm

One of the small blessings that the existence of Royalty brings to the UK is that, as head of the Church of England, the Queen acts as a repository for that kind of nonsense without having any real constitutional power.

27. Are they running for President or Pastor-in-Chief?

Comment #134498 by bucketchemist on February 27, 2008 at 10:31 pm

Perhaps a better question for Tim Russert to ask would have been;
"Are you or have you ever been a member of a non-religious organisation?"

28. Evidence can't shake your faith if your faith excludes it as evidence

Comment #132774 by bucketchemist on February 25, 2008 at 7:45 am

I tried the link to the PBS Evolution series, but all I got was a small part of the entire program, NOT the section where the one student was taken aback by seeing a real fossil come out of the ground. I guess I have to buy the entire program - Evolution (The Mind's Big Bang/What About God?) (DVD) - $29.95 for 120 minutes. I sent them a note asking if they do volume discounts, in case there are a number of us interested in getting a copy. Stay tuned for a response.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnQaCxF-1IQ

I think it's on there somewhere

29. Evidence can't shake your faith if your faith excludes it as evidence

Comment #132765 by bucketchemist on February 25, 2008 at 7:33 am

I think Campos is using Fish incorrectly here. When Fish says that "No believer will find his faith shaken by evidence that is evidence only in the light of assumptions he does not share and considers flatly wrong." he is not talking about the deliberate and inconsequential ignoring of contradictory evidence that happens all the time amongst young Earth creationists for example, he is talking about something much more fundemental. There is no reason to suppose that an angel appearing in front of Richard Dawkins would convert him to theism, it would simply add angelic beings to the list of phenomena to be explained by science, since science is the assumptive light that both Dawkins and the angel are appearing in. If, on the other hand, Dawkins had a Matrix-like red pill experience, in which he was transported to a reality in which all those assumptions were invalidated and replaced by those appropriate to theology, then the evidence would make sense and he would have to believe in the angel.

(p.s. any other 1970's acid casualties on this forum?)

30. How he was sentenced to die

Comment #132658 by bucketchemist on February 25, 2008 at 4:59 am

Most jurists would say that at the very least, it also includes the concept of due process. This doesn't just mean that the procedures are laid down in advance, but also that there's some reasonable opportunity to put your case. A four minute hearing, without access to a lawyer or opportunity to speak, doesn't constitute any meaningful standard of due process.

I would agree, although due process is a concept inherent in US and UK law, but I'm not sure it features in Afghanistan, I would suspect not.

31. How he was sentenced to die

Comment #132644 by bucketchemist on February 25, 2008 at 4:28 am

It seems to me there are three related issues here

1. Did he break the law of that country?
2. Did he get a trial that was in line with that country's official practices?
3. Is the law that he may have broken a just law?

If the answer to 1 and 2 is yes, then we have nothing to say about this individual case. The rule of law is a necessary prerequisite for any kind of organised society. If we feel strongly enough that the answer to 3 is No; that the law, even if properly applied, is unjust, (and I am assuming most of us do), then we can only campaign vigorously for its change, without reference to this unfortunate young man.

The only alternative I can think of to this combination of insisting on the rule of law combined with campaigning for changes to this law is to offer citizenship and safe passage to any Afghan (Iraqi, Korean etc.) who wishes to live in a different society under different laws.

32. Ayaan Hirsi Ali asks for protection

Comment #128048 by bucketchemist on February 15, 2008 at 11:24 pm

She was threatened in a note left on his body for writing the script for Van Gogh's Submission - a highly controversial film alleging that women were being abused under Islam.

I'm not sure I'd refer to Submission as 'controversial'; The responses to the film seem to me to be either intellectual agreement or violent opposition, which are not the equivalencies you would need for a true controversy.

33. Battle of the Chambersburg billboards

Comment #124772 by bucketchemist on February 10, 2008 at 7:43 am

If you want to know why the story is so one-sided, just read this about the reporter:
http://www.writers.net/writers/31854

That is a seriously sleazy c.v. Telemarketing, Advertisement copy writing, and Gospel tracts. Great combination. Well rounded set of hobbies too.

34. What should a scientist think about religion?

Comment #118209 by bucketchemist on January 30, 2008 at 1:28 pm

ll that's holding up religion now is the privilege and power that is artificially granted those who adhere to it

I'm not convinced by this line personally. Given that pretty much all human beings seem to have a desire to spend a lot of time in the presence of really big questions (why is there something rather than nothing? What happens after you die? Does life have purpose? etc), and given also that religion provides that presence in ways which are accessible to the least educated and educatable (which science cannot) then I suspect it will hang around as long as it provides that service.

35. Stop revisionist Christian nation House Resolution 888

Comment #114400 by bucketchemist on January 22, 2008 at 6:42 am

I think this is over-simplifying. I think it would help if we stopped thinking of atheists as rational and reasonable, and instead realise that atheism can arise out of rationalism, not the other way around. If we start assuming anything of anyone because they are atheist, we play into the hands of those who like to talk of "atheist values".

You're right, thanks for the reminder. I guess I was thinking of the particular context of this forum, which stresses reason and science, rather than atheism per se. Atheists have the right to be close-minded irrational jerks every bit as much as the God-botherers.

36. Stop revisionist Christian nation House Resolution 888

Comment #114379 by bucketchemist on January 22, 2008 at 5:40 am

Argue all you like. Really. You'll never, ever, ever get me to concede that this is a bad idea. Never. You'll never, ever win me over. Agree to disagree if you like. But you'll never, ever, win me over to your side.

This kind of fundamentalist attachment to a position is more usually associated with theists than atheists, so it's pretty interesting (and depressing) to see it here. My experience tells me that, in both cases, as soon as even the possibility of a change of mind is removed from the equation, then further discussion is a waste of time.

Oh, and the next time an Islamic or Christian nutjob says something I think is out of order (stoning, Jesus Camp, genital mutilation, Sharia law, killing of abortionists, 'kill a queer for Christ' campaigns) I must remember this 'agree to disagree' line.

37. Do our leaders believe in God?

Comment #102266 by bucketchemist on December 22, 2007 at 8:02 am

He's right, isn't he? If George W.Bush prays for guidance on invading Iraq, I want to know that. If (as we now know) Mr Blair would regularly choose biblical texts to contemplate in Downing Street, I want to know that. If a Cabinet minister whose government must take decisions on abortion, or homosexuality, or contraception, or embryo research, belongs to Opus Dei, I want to know that. And if a party leader is an unbeliever, a convinced Christian voter should equally want to know that too.

I'm not sure this necessarily follows. The idea that there is a need for Christians (say) to know that a party leader is atheist is not equivalent to the need for the voting public to know of possible religious bias held by those in public office. I expect my government to carry out its duties according to the (secular) laws and procedures applicable to all members of society, and reflecting the concerns of those members. I would certainly not expect religious beliefs of any kind to be a factor. In other words, even if I had a religion myself I would still expect government to behave as if it was atheist. This is not a complementary argument.

38. In the name of God: the Saudi rape victim's tale

Comment #91679 by bucketchemist on November 29, 2007 at 1:05 am

Does this say they were both raped? Didn't the other person have something to say about it?

39. What's the evolutionary advantage of offering your place to an old woman on a bus?

Comment #83101 by bucketchemist on October 29, 2007 at 12:25 am

It seems likely to me that this kind of altruistic behaviour, whilst it may have its origins in specific situations of evolutionary advantage, has long been a spandrel, available for application in other situations. The moral sense which underpins this act may have emerged from any social behaviour, or combination of behaviours, which allowed shared genes to flourish, but once that sense is developed it becomes available for general use and for codification in the mores of a society. The particular instance of giving up one's seat on a bus needs no explanation, just the existence of a general individual sense of right and wrong and a social structure which guides that sense in some way. (The necessity of the latter is evidenced by the decline in altruistic behaviour that accompanies social collapse). The same argument could be applied to moral vegetarianism, pacifism, and (maybe) right-to-life campaigning.

40. Muslims tell Christians: 'Make peace with us or survival of world is at stake'

Comment #78189 by bucketchemist on October 12, 2007 at 5:01 am

How about a response from the Christian community asserting its allegiance to secular government and the peaceful unity of nations through political process and the separation of church and state. That wouldn't hurt I wouldn't think. Unless of course the Xtian churches are more concerned with waving their own theocratic cohones than with actually doing anything useful.

41. Griffin's 'offensive' Emmy speech to be censored

Comment #69621 by bucketchemist on September 12, 2007 at 1:03 am

"It is a sure bet that if Griffin had said, 'Suck it, Mohammed', there would have been a very different reaction," Catholic league president Bill Donohue said in a statement posted on the group's website.

So is he saying that the reaction that fundamentalist Muslims might make to a similar comment about Mohammed would be the right one?