1. Evolution's Critics Shift Tactics With Schools

Comment #175019 by RainDear on May 4, 2008 at 7:09 am

Thanks epeeist,

I checked out the wikipedia Wedge link. These people are not just silly. They are clearly dangerous and truly, deeply evil.

In my younger and more vulnerable years I considered all religious people belonging to the same general group as satanists, as they both tried to summon some supernatural force to help them. And many of the same people who were into religion, were also into the occult some time in their life. Usually later, after they were disappointed by their god. Reality and reason just didn't do it for them.

Maturing a bit, I decided they were just a bit silly, nothing to be afraid of, despite their irrationality and symbolic blood-drinking. But now I find myself rethinking my position again.

2. Evolution's Critics Shift Tactics With Schools

Comment #174987 by RainDear on May 4, 2008 at 3:28 am

My post above was a response to Will Young, but apparently he has edited his post, and I can't edit mine having logged out. In case my reference seems strange.

3. Evolution's Critics Shift Tactics With Schools

Comment #174983 by RainDear on May 4, 2008 at 3:16 am

Will Young --

Not sure if your post was aimed at me, but I'll put a few words in anyway. In an earlied thread a few months ago I encountered some resentment for my commenting on my personal experience with some American people I've met. Apparently many, even smart and enlightened Americans are strangely touchy about their country.

I can't understand how criticizing something or commenting on an honest observation is counter-productive. Critique is the beginning of changing things. Or, in my case, learning. Asking for responses, not conversation-killing resentment. Critique is not bashing. In my case, I'm constantly wondering how a nation with some of the best universities of the world can have such a low level of basic, general education. If this view is incorrect, it is easily corrected by stating facts to the contrary.

Furthermore, having a few words in a constitution about being a secular country means nothing, if the reality is something else. There are many highly developed countries with all kinds of gods or faiths written all over their old constitutions and ancient laws. But it means nothing in reality, in everyday politics, and the way these countries run their schools and universities.

In no other developed, civilized, high-literacy nation than the US is a scientific fact like evolution denied in such a fervour. Certainly in no other nation than the US is a scientific fact like evolution under such idiotic campaigns, even legal attacks. Thankfully, the ID-proponents and other liars for Jesus seem to be on the losing side, but in most other countries, these ID-cases would be laughed at, not taken seriously.

So, the reality in which the Americans live is extremely relevant to this topic.

4. Evolution's Critics Shift Tactics With Schools

Comment #174966 by RainDear on May 4, 2008 at 1:57 am

The only reason things like this endless anti-evolution campaign can gain any foothold in the minds of the Americans must be their wilful ignorance about the rest of the world. Or is there some great conspiracy to turn America into some Huxleyan nation of alfa-, beta- and mostly omega-citizens? The ivy league elite runs the country, does the necessary science (or pays Asians and Europeans to do it) and the great ignorant masses are kept happy with hamburgers, soap operas and American football?

There is irony to the US being such a big nation. A great many, if not the most Americans apparently live inside a small bubble. That is, inside a very, very small world comprised of their own town or their home state at the most. They only watch their own TV shows, read their own magazines and newspapers, listen to their own music and only follow their local parochial news. The only outside news they ever get are about some foreign war the US is currently involved in. Whereas people in most other countries in the world have to be bi- or trilingual, very few Americans even speak one foreign language fluently, let alone follow any foreign news by a foreign TV station or newspaper.

So, these bubble-Americans don't realize how silly they are or what an utterly idiotic picture they give of their beloved home country. Don't these people, even their leaders realize they will pay the price for ignoring such elementary things as scientific facts? Already the US is sinking into a deeper debt every year, the American economy is in shambles and tries to pull the rest of the world down with it.

I like how Christopher Hitchens talks so highly of America's ideals. As a European, also admiring many facets of the American culture, I would like his wishful thinking to be true. But I'm afraid he is wrong about America.

Not knowing him, I guess he mostly hangs out with the intelligentsia, the well-read academic elite. This part of America is undeniably very enlightened. After a few visits to the US, I have occasionally encountered this admirable part of the country, but mostly the other, a much larger and sadder side of the US.

I certainly hope my limited experience turns out to be false negativity.

5. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170334 by RainDear on April 27, 2008 at 4:15 pm

ThoughtsonCommonToad --

It might be that in certain cases Dawkins, being so strongly a scientist, leaves his arguments open for certain kinds of philosophical attacks. As he put it in one book, I think, a "philosopher is a person who just won't accept a simple answer". Hope I'm not misquoting, since I like the quote.

We non-scientists mostly live in a half-fictional world. We are often willing to accept a proposal, if it's just somehow POSSIBLE. We watch movies, read fiction and enjoy steamy gossip and rarely demand evidence to back the story up. In science, however, things are accepted only if they are at least highly PROBABLE.

So, at least I'm going to stay away from the infinite improbability argument against gods. Probably an alien, powerful enough to create lab universes, would satisfy the god-hunger of the religiously oriented people. And they would be happy to be worshipping slaves to this ET-dictator.

Fortunately, there's simply no reason to think such a horrible thing exists. And that's enough to keep me from worrying about it.

6. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170295 by RainDear on April 27, 2008 at 3:20 pm

ThoughtsonCommonToad --

Sorry, this is about your earlier comments. But there was something I didn't get.

Sure, it's pretty cool, this thought experiment of Shermer's. But still, it's only playing with ideas, enjoyable science fiction, but with no evidence. Nothing actually indicates our universe was created as an ETI's lab project. Shermer's just having fun, there is no scientific reason to even come up with such an idea. The only motivation behind Shermer's idea is to bend over backwards to humour our religious friends. We must find their poor old God something to do and a place to be, since He doesn't actually have any real job in the creation business.

Of course, gods, spirits or universe-designing ETI-aliens COULD exist. Since I like fairy tales too, even I can come up with many possible ways gods and super-beings could exist. Shermer came up with a nice one. But why would a rational, reasonable person actually believe they DO exist, without any evidence?

I find your criticism of the Dawkins article superficial. Basically, what Shermer seems to be saying is that yes, an ETI could have designed A universe. Dawkins seems to be saying that even if it were true, an ETI could not have designed THE universe.

For Dawkins, the word "universe" apparently means "everything", something that includes all the possible multiverses, parallel universes, fecund or ancestral universes and so on. Whereas Shermer talks about an alien, already living in one universe, being capable of creating a another one, a new baby universe.

Ok, in this context, Dawkins doesn't seem to be bothering about all the contemporary cosmological propositions about multiple universes like Everett's "many-worlds"-interpretation of the quantum mechanics or Smolin's idea of fecund universes. But that's hardly the point.

An ETI could have created our universe by, say, manufacturing a black hole. Also, our universe could actually be a computer simulation run by our future descendants, as Bostrom proposes.

But even an ETI could not have created itself and it's own universe. It may be a very, very smart ETI, but it still must have evolved naturally from very, very simple beginnings.

7. Yoko Ono, Filmmakers Caught in 'Expelled' Flap

Comment #165956 by RainDear on April 22, 2008 at 4:10 pm

ZekeCDN --

Thanks for the "rant", interesting and informative. I see your point.

However, the sentiment behind my post was actually less about Yoko Ono exploiting the "Imagine" rights financially, and more about the moral rights of an artist. As far as I understand, the concept of "moral rights" doesn't legally apply in the US, but in most of the EU countries it's very strong and even inalienable.

Although this concept does create problems too, it does protect an artist's work against certain abuse, such as this case. An artist should have a right to refuse the use of his work in furthering an unacceptable, even evil cause.

8. Yoko Ono, Filmmakers Caught in 'Expelled' Flap

Comment #163569 by RainDear on April 18, 2008 at 2:26 pm

A little remark on the strange ideas about the copyrights some of the people post here:

Copyrights exist because some people earn their living by selling their "intellectual property". How can this go too far? Why do so many of you have something against copyrights?

I'm no fan of Yoko Ono, but of course she should sue. John Lennon earned his living by selling his intellectual property. And now some semi-criminal producers are using his art, his work, his ideas and his life principals clearly against his wishes, certainly without his or his posterity's consent --- all just to further their own evil cause.

Why don't these creationist producers write their own music? Or is stealing from the rich Lennon family somehow more acceptable than stealing from a struggling artist?

9. Gods and earthlings

Comment #163550 by RainDear on April 18, 2008 at 1:52 pm

About lying for Jesus:

I was in a film industry seminar a few weeks ago and attended a lecture given by a top entertainment lawyer. It was on the legal issues such as contracts, copyrights and moral rights as they are handled in the European Union.

In the EU generally, it is illegal to mistreat anyone's original material. You can't make a porn film of your friend's school play, even if you pay him a million. And you can't turn an atheist novel into a religious film either. You may even have bought the rights and you may have a written consent, but this means very little in a European court of law, if the author later feels his moral rights (droit moral) have been violated. Moral rights can't be waived by a signature. They are inalienable, to protect our intellectual work and accomplishments.

Well, I'm not a lawyer. But in my understanding of this business, the Droit Moral- concept in our European law would also allow legal action against a documentary, in which an interview is deliberately edited to give a false impression of the interviewed person's real opinions. Apparently, at least RD's statements have clearly been treated in a derogatory way by the producers of Expelled.

Sadly, the US law doesn't recognize these moral rights of an artist, writer or any original creator. Also the UK handles these moral rights differently from the rest of the EU. And since Dr. Dawkins is a public figure, he doesn't enjoy the same legal protection of his private person as most of us do.

But in the continental Europe, prosecuting and even convicting the producers of Expelled shouldn't be too hard in this case. Of course the outcome of any court case is uncertain, and the ID morons probably steer away from European screens. But I wouldn't mind if, say, the RDF were awarded some of that creationist blood money

10. Yoko Ono, Filmmakers Caught in 'Expelled' Flap

Comment #162427 by RainDear on April 17, 2008 at 12:19 am

One thing strikes me as odd with Maureen's early, otherwise knowledgeable post. How has she come to a conclusion that Christians are supposed to be honest?

Usually any group thinking they have a higher idea, even a supernatural power behind them, considers it fair to use almost any means necessary to have their way. Honesty is hardly inherent to religious or dogmatic thinking.

This has clearly been the case with christians, muslims, hindus, satanists, nazis, communists... not to mention patriotic groups, religious or secular.

11. Get out of here, atheists!

Comment #156598 by RainDear on April 8, 2008 at 2:31 am

Quill --

A small correction to your earlier post about Swedish tax money and building churches:

The Scandinavian general tax system gives NO MONEY to churches (not being Swedish myself, I should check this fact regarding their particular system, but I think it works the same way).

There is a separate "church tax", which you are required to pay ONLY if you are a member of the Lutheran State Church. Nobody has to be its member, so this tax is fully voluntary. I don't think the church can legally even deny a church wedding from a non-member marrying a member.

Naturally the State Church is losing members and tax payers every day, as people get smarter and more educated. And the role of the church in our Scandinavian societies is mostly seremonial and charity-oriented. If the church ever gets any money from the state taxes, it is by a congregation separately applying it for an artistic or a charity purpose, arguably all in line with decent and secular values.

As for building churches, it is a wonderful opportunity for my architect friends to create art. Churches are great buildings available to concerts, family gatherings and exhibitions. They are modern top design, state-of-the-art architectural projects, almost always a result of a public architectural competition (which are probably more often than not won and eventually designed by atheist or at least very secular architects). Well, the churches do have this God nonsense going on on Sundays, but I find it mostly charming.

At least in urban areas, even a minister's Sunday sermon condemning atheism the way Davis does, would be met with strong criticism. Here, even the most adamant faith-heads seem to be on friendly terms with their atheist friends. A good many have married one.

But thanks to all Americans here for taking a strong position against this Davis faith-fascist. And sorry about being so condescending in my Scandinavian attitude to this matter, but reading about this kind of stuff makes me so glad I'm not living in the US. Although admittedly that big, big nation has many very good things going for it.

12. Get out of here, atheists!

Comment #156346 by RainDear on April 7, 2008 at 11:16 am

Once again, trying not to offend our American friends but ---

How is it possible for these idiots to get elected? What the hell is wrong with your country?

I know respectable secularist thinkers like Austin Dacey are strongly against calling these people American Taleban, but how far is this from them? Is public stoning really the essential difference? If an American politician harbours this much hatred against reason, justice and free speech, the middle ages are much closer on that side of the Atlantic than I ever thought possible.

13. In His Name We Pray, Ramen

Comment #152013 by RainDear on March 30, 2008 at 2:51 am

I like this FSM deity very much, but it stops half way.

The ID proponents try to base their case on equal time, free speech, democracy and so on. That seems to be a very convincing argument, and a pretty slick move on their part. It's quite hard to argue against equality and freedom of thought -- not that the ID fascists are really promoting that, as their ideal, theocratic society would be modelled after the Middle Ages.

But of course their argument is not about free speech, equality or democracy. It is chauvinistic, rasist and oppressive to the thousands of other creation theories of thousands of other religions. The curriculum shouldn't be divided into just three parts, but into at least a hundred parts.

The theory of my people says the world was created when a scaup's egg fell off a Water Maiden's knee (apparently both of them had always existed). Why do you Americans embrace the FSM and a couple of some weird Middle Eastern myths, but discard all the Scandinavian ones?

This FSM thing is a pretty cool idea, but easily dismissed as a joke. How about all the native American, Hawaiian or a hundred other mythical creation theories? They should all get their 15 minutes!

14. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #150522 by RainDear on March 27, 2008 at 4:05 am

Great stuff from Blackmore. I actually find her speaking more captivating than her writing, although The Meme Machine is quite an interesting book.

Listening to McGrath I kind of realized something. He is such a literal mind, that he simply can't live without MEANING.

Let me give a short quote some of you may find interesting. It is from an already deceased art teacher of mine, back in my early days studying arts and architecture. A strict kandinskyan, he said: "Literature is the cancer of visual arts."

What he meant was that he, an abstract painter and sculptor, was continously irritated by people bending over backwards to assign MEANING or SYMBOLISM or MYTHS to his abstractions. "Does this black line over the faded red circle somehow allude to...er... japanese 18th century militarism?" --- "Geez, it's just a line over a reddish circle! It just looked nice to me, damn it!"

My point being, there are a lot of people, a great many of them religiously oriented, who just must have a literal meaning. It is not interesting how the universe works, unless you know what the meaning behind the workings of the universe is.

These McGraths of the world are well read, educated, even intelligent. But they must come up with a MEANING to help them get up in the morning. They need to believe they are part of some great plan, there must be a duty their life must fulfill. The only real question to them is WHY, all the other questions are just technical details. And since science isn't about meaning, science is vacuous, cold, mechanical. They need a God, a big boss, a sky daddy to provide them with a meaning.

McGrath, clearly a nice guy, is a poster boy for delusion.

15. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #132691 by RainDear on February 25, 2008 at 6:08 am

This is one of my favourite sections in the Ancestor's Tale. Also the moral implications RD points out are interesting, and I've cited them every now and then in casual conversations.

Excellent point from Mitchell Gilks, though. As a human being, I selfishly find it a relief that there now is such a clear distinction between us and other ape species. Now we can at least draw some line between acceptable and unacceptable killing. Otherwise, given our racist and tribalist tendencies, killing anything foreign could be a commonplace and there would be no end to genocidal wars.

Then again, this sad thing may have already happened between the earlier hominids. Perhaps the Neanderthals were the nice guys. And we named our own, aggressive species the Homo Sapiens Sapiens quite undeservedly.

16. Atheists An Increasingly Outspoken Minority

Comment #129327 by RainDear on February 19, 2008 at 1:33 am

Excellent point from Steve Zara and others about trust and hope.

Bishop Hanson seems like a nice, diplomatic moderate Christian. But how can an otherwise (I suppose) reasonable adult place his trust and hope on an imaginary sky daddy? Hasn't he grown up?

Does God exist? Of course he does. Many gods exist. Just like Hamlet or Harry Potter, Superman or Sergeant Pepper. Such fictional characters undeniably exist in our memesphere, inside people's brains. And as such entities, although originally fictional, they influence our behaviour.

But aren't the people who give their allegiance to non-human agents actually renegades to their own species? They choose to trust and obey an outside invader of their minds. Instead of working together towards the good of their own species and celebrating the brilliance and goodness in their fellow men, they give the power and credit to a Celestial Emperor. In a 1950's science fiction scenario, wouldn't they just as easily be willing to serve as slaves to an extraterrestrial conqueror? Isn't that the ultimate betrayal? And in the American society, why is this not considered extremely anti-American?

However, Bishop Hanson is a theologian and probably has very little experience of actual, practical problem solving. People who actually work in professions where real, practical problems are encountered and solved on daily basis don't just hope and trust.

In times of need, such people think, discuss, ask each other for advice, make decisions. And then they work hard. It's not as easy as hoping and praying, it's slow and painstaking. But that's how remarkable things get done.

17. Dumb and Dumber: Are Americans Hostile to Knowledge?

Comment #128437 by RainDear on February 17, 2008 at 2:24 am

JuxtaMonkey,

Why on Earth do you accuse me of upholding a stereotype, if I'm merely saying that one exists? Don't shoot the messenger.

I am not talking about American stupidity as any kind of a fact. I am talking about how many people outside the US see America. I am hoping something could be done about it.

I have mostly met polite, intelligent, helpful and open-minded Americans. I have a great respect for the best parts of such a large country and culture as the US. While being irritated by some of the worst parts.

But it is a fact, not some dogmatic declaration, that America has a huge image problem, when basic education is concerned. I apologize for not being able to back this up with current data right now. However, such polls have sometimes been taken and the ones I have seen do back this up. If some other polls contradict this, fine, but still, such a negative image is known to exist. My point was from personal experience though, which is a reasonable basis for a comment in this kind of a conversation.

So face it, this image problem is real. Even if the stupidity were not.

Let's make this clear: I myself am not saying Americans are stupid. I am merely saying that a lot of people, in about 40-50 countries I have visited, do think so. Simple as that. Of course this stereotype of stupidity is just a distorted image. It's Americans who send space probes to Saturn, for crying out loud.

Why are some people here, Americans or otherwise, so offended by my observation of an existing image problem? I tried to tell how sad this situation is. Instead of figuring out ways to make this bad image better, you resort to bashing the people I've met and talked to. "So they think Americans are stupid? Well, they... they're stupider!"

18. Dumb and Dumber: Are Americans Hostile to Knowledge?

Comment #128191 by RainDear on February 16, 2008 at 12:53 pm

With reference to jonkull's and SharonMcT's posts --

If my post was taken as a piece of America-bashing, I should choose my word more carefully in the future. Well, maybe I wanted to provoke some reaction, to be honest. But bashing, no.

However, I've reported it as I've seen it. Knowing about a stereotype is essential if one wishes to act against it, although you probably don't need me to report it. Youtube is full of this stereotypical image of Americans, and I certainly am not taking it as the actual truth.

But these stereotypes come from somewhere, and I would love to see some effort put into changing that stereotype. To me it's interesting how the American media, for instance, seems to take pride in the alleged ignorance of its people (Although some of it is commendable self-irony and shows a fine sense of humour).

Of course, correcting a stereotype would be better than just changing into another false image, but given how people think, stereotypes are not easily eradicated. Any stereotypes, any side of the Atlantic.

19. Dumb and Dumber: Are Americans Hostile to Knowledge?

Comment #128087 by RainDear on February 16, 2008 at 4:44 am

Please, please, all you smart and literate Americans, start doing something about your country's reputation.

I took a very small and limited poll among my acquaintances. From left to right wing, nobody seems to be able to say the word "American" without sneering.

Even having an American friend is something people keep to themselves, in fear of ridicule. It is sad how all of the US citizens I've met in Europe have started by apologising for their nationality, including a marine soldier working for the American Embassy.

All this because Kellie Pickler and George W. Bush are considered typical Americans. Carl Sagan or Ernest Hemingway are people of the past.

20. Bill Maher on Larry King Live

Comment #125862 by RainDear on February 12, 2008 at 7:30 am

I'm jumping on a band wagon a bit here, since many of you have already argued well for Western medicine and against GSP in this particular matter.

Anyway, many otherwise decent and moral people are so adamantly against some or another public effort to take care of our society. This constantly baffles me. Naturally I can't presume to know all the reasons they have for their views. My simple guess would be to blame our short collective memory, and maybe the all-too-pretty picture that films, books and other wonderful works of fiction have painted of our past centuries.

Take Scandinavia for instance. Only some decades ago almost all the kids got sick in all kinds of bad ways. There were contagious diseases like the measles, chicken pox, diphtheria, the list is long. And then there were the medical death sentences like leukemia. Some suffered a lot. Some even died in their infancy. Parents were in misery. Apart from the very wealthy class, the parents didn't even dare to form a loving relationship to their children until they were three or four, i.e. fairly likely to survive. In 1808 the emotional value of a toddler was about the same as that of an embryo in 2008.

Now, sorry to sound too complacent, but to most families "contagious disease" is an experience they almost never have to face. The worst problem most kids have is a flu, about once every winter or so. For the past three or four decades very, very few Scandinavian children have even experienced any of these once so common childhood diseases, and certainly no child has died of them. Parents are still shocked if their child has cancer. But they are consoled by the fact that in 2008, over 80% of all childhood cancers are cured completely, over 90% in cases of leukemia.

How has this happened? Western medicine. Biochemical drugs. Public vaccination programs. State-organised and supervised child care centers. Parental education on health and nutrition. On every town and village. Irrational anti-vaccine opinions have been tolarated, but usually a bit frowned upon, as vaccinations were a common pact, an agreement to help each other.

But now, some people have the luxury to think it just happened. Some are even academically educated, but still they find the ancient ways somehow more natural, closer to mother Gaia. As if there were some tribal, deeper wisdom we have arrogantly lost and should return to.

They just don't remember.

21. Battle of the Chambersburg billboards

Comment #124909 by RainDear on February 10, 2008 at 12:11 pm

Sorry, my dear God trusting Americans, don't you realize it's not just atheists who hate America. Christians, Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists hate America too!

(Ok, you probably got the Mormons and Scientologists on your side, I'll give you that.)

We know the IGWT people are probably doing their best to rid God's Earth from most of us weird foreigners (ya know, all 'em sons of bitches living outside yer holy borders). And we know this planet is God's gift for the Americans. But we un-, anti- and non-Americans just don't care.

IGWT should quickly do something to shut up the American atheists, or we foreigners may have to re-evaluate our America-hating position. And where would the American born-again Christianity be, if hate run out of the world.

- - -

Yeah, not really a decent post for this fine site, as some of America's best are so much involved in it. But I don't wanna tarnish my hands with the idiotic IGWT site, and I've wasted my Sunday watching the CNN election coverage and countless frustrating Huckabee interviews.

22. Putting Candidates' Religion to the Test

Comment #121726 by RainDear on February 4, 2008 at 3:31 am

As a devout christian, trusting the Bible, you believe that within the next few decades all the 65 million muslim, hindu, buddhist, jewish and atheist US citizens are going to hell to suffer horribly for all eternity.

Why should they consider you a decent person?

Why would they trust you to care about their earthly problems now?

Isn't the next year's budget insignificant next to the billions of years of torture waiting for these 65 million Americans?

Shouldn't you immediately initiate operations of mass conversions, religious purifications and even holy wars if necessary, in order to save as many fellow Americans as possible from the terrible, eternal tornment? If not, how can you be so indifferent to their well-being?

Actually, to get the problem over with, what would stop you from following the Bible's command and killing them to the last infant?

23. Happy Birthday Josh Timonen!

Comment #119411 by RainDear on January 31, 2008 at 3:06 pm

Hauskaa syntymäpäivää and thanks for this great site.

24. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #116739 by RainDear on January 27, 2008 at 10:05 am

Oh dear.

As so many have already mentioned here, this John-character is clearly utterly silly and misinformed. I'd rather reserve the word "idiot" for medical purposes, so let's leave it at that.

I'm writing only to thank RD for throwing John's "Oh dear" right back at him. So many less experienced scientist speakers fall so easily in front of such cheap tricks. It's frightening how religion, moderate or fundamentalist, gives such arrogance to such average minds. Using elementary rhetorical tricks, some self-proclaimed Besserwisser like John can often manage to sound as if his life wisdom rises above the level of all cutting edge science.

It's maddening how often the religious people manage to turn the game upside down by stealing the very qualities the scientist has and they themselves lack. They claim to be the honest seekers, meek and mild, wise, gentle, truthful and tolerant. While everything on which they base their life philosophy is nothing but a mixture of blind faith, denial of facts and dishonest claims, arrogance and intolerance.

When you politely question their beliefs they call you a fundamentalist. They say you rant. You're angry, intolerant, a rottweiler. They know it shuts you up for a while. They know it hurts you. Because that's exactly what you abhor as an atheist or a rationalist or a secularist. It's such a blow below the belt.

But they don't mind breaking the rules of the discussion, misrepresenting your position or downright lying. Because they are doing it for God.

25. Ben Stein Bribing Schools to See His Anti-Evolution Movie 'Expelled'

Comment #112783 by RainDear on January 18, 2008 at 4:45 am

What is it with the Americans? I'm so puzzled by this strange (and among educated people almost uniquely American) urge to deny evolution.

We constantly use evolutionary algorithms and techniques in computer science, engineering, medicine, design, industrial processing and what have you. In the museums we see all kinds of fossils of all kinds of species that no longer exist. We see wolves and it immediately crosses anybody's mind, that the different breeds of our dogs are descended from this one canine species. We play with those dogs or take our kids to zoo to see apes and monkeys. And we can't avoid being charmed by the physical, behavioural, intellectual and emotional similarities between them and us.

In order to deem the theory of evolution as scientifically false, it would take quite a lot. First, we should have some logical grounds to doubt it. Then, we should show how the theory completely fails to explain some specific detail. Then we should show how all the enormous amount of consistent evidence has somehow been interpreted the wrong way by all the smartest specialist among us. Then we should come up with a new theory to both explain that which evolution fails to explain and everything that evolution has succeeded to explain. Then, find more evidence specifically backing that new theory. Work out at least the general details of that specific, new and supposedly better theory. And cumulate an amount of evidence that surpasses all the evidence of the current theory -- the theory of evolution.

Of course we must doubt all scientific theories. But I simply can't bring myself to believe that any sane and even half-educated person would start a public fight against the theory of evolution. How come these people are not considered complete idiots in America? Please, my American friends, enlighten me, a puzzled Scandinavian.

The only motive can be huge money or selfish political gain. Or maybe it's some psychological problem that bad grades in physics and biology or some bad-tempered science teacher's anger caused them in high school. Or what?

26. Creation vs. Reality

Comment #98674 by RainDear on December 14, 2007 at 2:42 am

Apparently many of you, as well as PZ Myers, seem to look at these things way, way too seriously. Have a sense of humour. Everything is not about propaganda. All factual errors are not hiding some anti-darwinist agenda behind them.

This little film is a charming little piece of cinematic art. Not earth-shattering, but charming. Its screenplay may have factual scientific errors, but that doesn't diminish the other merits. Come on, it was funny and beautiful! Ok, I am professionally a film maker, science is just a hobby to me. So I may come from a bit different place than, say, PZ Myers, but I have a huge respect for him and all other scientists.

The basic idea of this animation is fantastic: Switch the languages of theology and science, and see how that makes one feel about their propositions. To me the biblical language made science sound festive but stupid, and engineering jargon made creationism sound boring but plausible. And yes, it was interesting to see how the packaging affects the message. Both ways.

The message of this film? Well, at least it made me wonder that if we had built cathedrals, written poetry and painted murals to honour science the last 3000 years, much more people would embrace it. People clearly love the way religion's nonsensical propositions are packaged.

This film is not supposed to be educational. There's no way this film would make anyone believe that silly, albeit in many ways charming Bible stories could be compared to cool, well researched scientific facts. The comparison here is between cultural and emotional effects, not two competing world views.

27. Believe it or not, courtesy counts

Comment #83968 by RainDear on October 31, 2007 at 11:47 pm

Well, it's not a bad article. But, once again, it is sad to see that this religious apologetic apparently hasn't read the books he criticizes.

Hitchens may be a bit rough on the literal merits of the holy books, but at least RD's God Delusion makes several points on how essential the Bible is for English language, for one thing. And RD actually uses a lot of biblical quotes, quite skillfully.

So, how can mr. Romano say "these books tend to ignore a crucial question: What should the atheist's position be on sacred texts?" Does he expect the atheist writers to come up with some kind of common, official dogma on how we should all think about sacred texts?

28. Sam Harris at AAI 07

Comment #82163 by RainDear on October 25, 2007 at 7:15 pm

I find it a bit worrying how so many people (even inside this RD's forum of all places) seem to have this strange need for a strong, flawless intellectual leader.

Sure, Sam Harris makes a few points I find silly. And Hitch often comes off a bit arrogant. Yeah, it's sometimes irritating how Dennett avoids a direct statement and RD keeps repeating the same old lines, etc, etc. But isn't the point to not take their worst, but their best ideas, best speeches and best debates, and use them to help one's own thinking process. If you don't like what Harris or Hitch say about meditation or war on Iraq, listen to someone who makes more sense to you on those topics.

For some people there seems to be a strong emotional need to build their whole outlook on life on one word, atheism. Well, it won't take any of us very far. It's nothing but one reasonable, evidence-based opinion about one single topic. The whole word is pretty much meaningless, unless you happen to live surrounded by religious bullies.

29. Sam Harris at AAI 07

Comment #82146 by RainDear on October 25, 2007 at 6:33 pm

Janus,

That's the very thing about labelling: Once you accept a label, someone's going to make you responsible for all kinds of thing that are done under that label.

30. Sam Harris at AAI 07

Comment #82138 by RainDear on October 25, 2007 at 6:21 pm

As this Harris AAI 07 talk has been discussed at lenght when the transcript came available, it's probably good to brief here.

It's almost impossible to make words mean what you want them to mean. Language doesn't work like that. It has little to do with reason or logic, and quite a bit with recent history. You just can't use the Latin or Spanish words for "black" in the American English, because it would sound offensive. You'd get punched in the face. So, since the simple fact is that the word atheism means "The Mao-Stalin-Hitler Fan Club" to so many people, why insist on using that word? Nobody could argue that millions were killed on Gulags by secular humanism or ethical rationalism.

Actually, we should turn the argument against the theists: Which do you put first, the interests of your living, breathing fellow human beings or the interests of an alleged abstract supernatural sky-creature?

31. Does fundamentalist religion cause the rejection of evolution? or is it the other way around?

Comment #80282 by RainDear on October 21, 2007 at 6:01 am

Many moderate, reasonable religious people and even some agnostics consider science a belief system and the theory of evolution just another dogma. A dogma they mostly believe in, as it comes from scientific authorities, but a dogma nevertheless. How many times have we all heard that it requires faith in science.

Evolution is still usually seen as a game of chance, even by those who willingly accept it. Somehow it is extremely hard for some people to understand how natural selection works in a cumulative way, and how this makes all the difference.

I once managed to make it a bit more concrete and easier to grasp. I tried to explain it to a nine-year-old.

Let's throw some dice. Say, you have ten dice and want to get ten sixes. The probability of getting all ten dice to be sixes in one throw is about 1 to 60 million. It would take years and years of idiotic dice-throwing to accomplish this.

But what if the dice could inherit their pips, and more pips would mean a better chance of survival? To make it really simple, let's say every time a die becomes a six, it survives, and you don't need to re-throw it. It inherits its value. First throw: maybe two or three sixes. They survive and pass on their value, and you'll only have to throw the remaining seven or eight dice. Next round, you'll get maybe another six, so less dice need to be re-thrown. And so on. You'll be able to get ten sixes in less than a minute.

Sure, the analogy only works so-so, but at least it shows the difference between mere "chance" and "chance + selection". It also gives the idea how much more improbable the idea of a one-throw-creator would be in comparison to cumulative natural selection.

32. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #79949 by RainDear on October 19, 2007 at 8:04 am

Bluejway,

I agree with some of your criticism. Some of this McGrath-bashing is ad hominem. And some of this mutual cheering for ourselves and for certain respected figures like Hitchens, Dawkins and Harris is a bit childish.

But sincerely, you must agree that McGrath has mainly been criticized for the vacuous content of his ideas and the incoherence of his way to communicate them, not his mannerisms. It really is frustrating, when one really wants to hear what sort of arguments the theist side could offer, and once again, ends up with nothing. All you get is "But the message to me is...", "But it's truth to me..." and "But it is my deep feeling that..." And, at the same time, these arguments based on someone's personal feelings, not evidence for us to consider, come with demands for respect, money, political power and all kinds of special privileges. For instance, enjoying tax free earnings in the US, or avoiding certain inconvenient duties like the army service in Scandinavia, or having the right to suppress political discourse in the Muslim world.

Yes, of course, it is McGrath's privilege, and yours, to have supernatural beliefs, unless they start to seriously harm other people. And of course, we don't equate moderate religious people with fundamentalist terrorists. And of course, we don't think the main message of modern Christianity is kill kill kill. We might even have good religious friends and consider them very moral, fair and fun to be around with. We respect their right to these feelings. So, yeah, we agree with this part, but because it's a public debate of supposedly great minds, we'd like to move on... but there seems to be nowhere the theist side is able to move on to. That's all they can offer, apart from an endless list of cherry-picked quotations from old books or dead, pre-Darwin philosophers, over and over, repeated ad nauseam.

But come on, really, bringing up McGrath's mannerisms is just having a bit of fun. I might be sorry if it offended him in a private conversation, had I ever met him. Then it could be considered just bad manners. But he's a public figure now, and availed himself for a little ridicule. Let's face it, this is a net site mostly visited by, not completely, but relatively like-minded people, who in their way like to enjoy each other's intellectual company. Certainly there is room for dissent. I think it's considered quite welcome on this site. And much, much more so than in any pro-religion community.

33. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #79286 by RainDear on October 16, 2007 at 5:52 pm

My Goodness. There it is, and perhaps we'll just have to accept it. McGrath and his kind simply seem to be almost another species from me, and probably from most of the people posting a comment here. Apparently he's very happy with his own eloquence. Clarity and reason are for the mere mortals and not needed by the ones in touch with the divine.

But to a sane person not sharing his particular diet of hallusinogenics, it is like listening to a drunk friend at a party. Never answering to any question actually posed. Not able to come up with two consequtive sentences that would actually make any sense together. No logical connection to any other reality but his own solipsism. Like a trained politician, he never replies the question he's asked, but mumbles about something that at least to him sounds smart, scientific and educated. It's a tribute to muddiness.

In private conversations, most of my religious friends explain their faith in a very solipsistic manner. They just seem to have this personal FEELING about God's existence. Well, although it's hardly an argument, they are entitled to their feelings. But this McGrath actually goes to publish a book using another professor's name and fame to market it. Then he attends public debates with serious people, claiming to offer counter arguments, while the sane but polite audience painfully tries to connect the dots to make some sense of his thoughts.

Actually, McGrath only argues within his own mind. He wants to argue somehow logically something that is based on his own warm fuzzy feelings, his own desperate need to have faith in something supernatural. And of course, he can't. He keeps bending backwards, sucking up to the audience by praising the value of his opponent's remarks, and then moves on to talk about something else. Like any spin doctor.

He paints himself in an intellectual corner, but clearly it's no problem for him. He's the other species, the muddy ones, who always prefer blurry and nebulous explanations over clear and simple ones, a fancy old quote to a new logical argument, and a blunt knife to Occam's razor.

34. Norway flourishes as secular nation

Comment #76176 by RainDear on October 5, 2007 at 1:29 am

Also, being geologically stable, having a good climate (as in not too extreme) and lacking external enemies make them very safe to live in. We don't know if they would be as secular if any of these factors were different.

Living in a Nordic country myself, I have to agree a history of stability makes it easier for a society to slowly develop into a secular one. Religion simply isn't an issue here, or at least it is a minor one. It's a personal thing and usually not to be discussed in public, kept to oneself like family problems, hereditary disease or embarassing birthmarks.

It seems that the basic Scandinavian version of religion is probably something "the new atheist" writers like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris wouldn't mind very much. All this god-stuff is not a big deal, so why write a book about it, most would say. I'd guess their sales are quite low in this part of the world. I had to order from Amazon.

However, this is a slow development. Religion is still alive here, it has not disappeared and probably won't for the next century. Perhaps never. But religion has been quietly reduced to a charming little cultural thing, a piece of folklore, a tradition with nice old songs and lovely holidays. Most people seem to respect the religious, because their darling old grandma is one of them and that nice young guy in the office is. But bringing religion to serious business, politics, science or art would be a major credibility risk, if not even a professional suicide.

And yet the main motto in Finland, fighting the Russians off in 1939-41, was "Home, religion, fatherland". I wonder if the same would emerge again, if the stable situation changed dramatically. Apparently threat, violence and insecurity feed religiousity. I don't deny the point Richard Dawkins makes when claiming there's a logical path form religious beliefs to evil deeds. But perhaps it mostly works the other way round.