1. Gods and earthlings

Comment #164383 by Ewan D on April 20, 2008 at 6:59 am

Speaking of Earthlings, watch this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhxKnys7Ryw

(It's called "Earthlings," so it's squarely on topic.)

2. Two More Fleas

Comment #142998 by Ewan D on March 13, 2008 at 10:27 am

David won't. He's been selling himself and his family and flock a bill of goods for too long. They'd never trust his authority again.

3. Critical Analysis of Case for a Creator

Comment #74527 by Ewan D on September 29, 2007 at 10:37 am

Thanks Billy - that was interesting.

4. Critical Analysis of Case for a Creator

Comment #72523 by Ewan D on September 21, 2007 at 12:45 pm

Can anyone provide a link to information on abiogenisis experiments which have produced self replicating molecules?

Thanks

5. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #69605 by Ewan D on September 11, 2007 at 9:10 pm

Wee D,

I'd like to second J's gratitude that you've posted his last installment on your church website.

http://www.fcosonline.org/index.php?topic=5.0

What's the feedback been like from the flock? Do you know of many who've read the whole discussion?

6. Interview with Francis Collins

Comment #69598 by Ewan D on September 11, 2007 at 8:26 pm

RickM,
Thanks for the link - looking forward to seeing Damasio in action.

7. Interview with Francis Collins

Comment #69174 by Ewan D on September 9, 2007 at 9:35 pm

oxytocin,
Most welcome! The lecture is surprisingly pertinent to your quarrel with Bergson.

Yorker - since you bring her up, do you have an opinion on Pat Churchland?

8. Interview with Francis Collins

Comment #69168 by Ewan D on September 9, 2007 at 9:14 pm

Re Comment #69166 by oxytocin

If it's any comfort to you, I had you down as a bloke!

Having just rewatched Churchland's lecture in Beyond Belief

http://beyondbelief2006.org/watch/ (session 5)

I suspect you'd be on the same page, scientifically. Talks a lot about your name's sake!

9. Interview with Francis Collins

Comment #69136 by Ewan D on September 9, 2007 at 7:05 pm

Bergson,

you seem to be begging for someone to call you on your 'pure reason' delusion.

If you're striving for 'pure reason,' uninfluenced by emotion, a start would be to selectively knock out the parts of your brain that 'contaminate' your reason with emotion (you'll find them in you orbitofrontal cortex). Done with care, your logical skills will remain intact and your IQ will remain unaffected. (See Damasio for examples of neural patients who've reached this wonderful, hyperlogical state through strokes, tumors and head injuries.)

Before you do that, be warned that in all such cases, reason crumbles without the automatic like/dislike compass of emotion.

If you choose not to, and are still allowed to claim a position of pure reason, manifestly built on emotion though it is, I'd argue that anyone defending the abstract concept of morality deserves similar indulgence, without you insisting on an impossible absolutism.

10. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #69003 by Ewan D on September 9, 2007 at 12:58 pm

"What ever hppened to free speech without the threat of cyber violence?"

That would be free speech without the threat of free speech, would it?

11. Interview with Francis Collins

Comment #69001 by Ewan D on September 9, 2007 at 12:50 pm

Re Comment #68992 by Henri Bergson

"Morality is faith as well. It is a delusion."

I notice you like to jolt your readers with bold assertions. Why be so blunt?

12. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #68991 by Ewan D on September 9, 2007 at 12:23 pm

Papabryant

"your central argument against religion (that it is the root of war and violence)"

you sure have a knack for homing in on someone's central argument.

Are you basing this on the title of his TV series, 'The Root Of All Evil?'?

If so, you ought to know that the title was neither thought up nor endorsed by Dawkins.

13. Interview with Francis Collins

Comment #68984 by Ewan D on September 9, 2007 at 11:55 am

Re Comment #68980 by He'sAVeryNaughtyBoy

May I jump in and recommend "The Happiness Hypothesis" by Johnathan Haight, psychologist. Though it's not specifically an exploration of morality, it is a damn fine introduction to what goes on in a person's head, and does go into depth on morality and related questions in several places. (I got the recommendation from the frequent contributor to this site, Johnathan, or 'J' and if you've read any of his posts, you'll know he's worth heeding.)

14. The Rise of Atheist America

Comment #68970 by Ewan D on September 9, 2007 at 10:52 am

Happy Monkey,

Shouldn't your avatar be a monkey?

Good comment though!

15. Interview with Francis Collins

Comment #68964 by Ewan D on September 9, 2007 at 9:58 am

Re Comment #68958 by Aaron

"Is Collins the best representative of a scientist with faith?"

He's not alone, but in professing a faith, he's certainly in a tiny minority among elite scientists.

I'm not sure if the word 'elite' applies to this whole list, (though certainly to parts of it) but other scientists with notions of a 'creator consciousness' of some sort would include
Freeman Dyson, physicist
Owen Gingerich, astronomer
Andrew Newberg, biologist
Athur Peacocke, (former) biochemist
John Polkinghorne, (former) physicist
Robert Pollack, biologist
Brian Swimme, cosmologist

These are among the interviewees on www.meaningoflife.tv

which also includes a good smattering of atheists as well. Dennett, Pinker, Maynard Smith, E.O. Wilson...

16. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #68939 by Ewan D on September 9, 2007 at 7:25 am

flying goose,

there are indeed two mindsets - one which divides the world into two mindsets and one which doesn't. I'm proud to say I'm in the latter camp.

(oops)

17. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #68797 by Ewan D on September 8, 2007 at 3:58 pm

fides-et-ratio, if you're still there, or anyone else who thinks McGrath presents a formidable challenge, I'd like to direct your attention to this response to a typical McGrath effort:

http://www.richarddawkins.net/article,1479,They-let-anybody-onto-the-faculty-at-Oxford-nowadays,PZ-Myers-Pharyngula

18. Richard Dawkins interviews the Bishop of Oxford

Comment #68032 by Ewan D on September 5, 2007 at 6:13 pm

Re Comment #34167 by 4th3157

Apparently not, alas. Legal resons...

19. Psychiatrists are the least religious of all physicians

Comment #67725 by Ewan D on September 4, 2007 at 2:22 pm

Hi Oxytocin,

I'm with you entirely. Thanks for your answers.

20. Psychiatrists are the least religious of all physicians

Comment #67711 by Ewan D on September 4, 2007 at 1:29 pm

Hi Oxytocin,

Thank you for responding. I'm particularly pleased to hear how much you bring to bear in terms of background information, when treating each patient.

By way of explanation, I found those video excerpts here...

http://www.existential-psychotherapy.com/index.html

That site (belonging to an existential psychotherapist friend of mine) has an interesting collection of resources which happen to be strongly anti CBT and anti psychiatric drugs. While finding much to think about regarding received notions of mental health and just what a 'diagnosis' comprises, (beyond a description of symptoms) I was uncomfortable at being asked to believe that mainstream psychotherapy is such a cynically profit-driven machine, interested only in making healthy people think they're unwell.

21. Psychiatrists are the least religious of all physicians

Comment #67693 by Ewan D on September 4, 2007 at 11:49 am

Can psychiatrists actually distinguish between madness and sanity?

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=1132947090810101429

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=5459494538449836108&total=46&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=5

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=6367537325455544758&total=41&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-4207172971104626590&total=43&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=5

22. Mother Teresa's '40-year faith crisis'

Comment #65792 by Ewan D on August 26, 2007 at 3:52 pm

A lot of folks are being rather harsh on the old lady. Don't you remember the unprecedented outpouring of public grief when she died and the power of Elton John's moving anthem "Sandals in the Bin"?

23. Open letter to Michael Shermer in response to his letter...

Comment #65277 by Ewan D on August 23, 2007 at 12:53 pm

Plenty of people have read TGD cover-to-cover and somehow kept their faith intact. As perplexing as that is, and as tempting as it is to dismiss such readers as stupid or immune to reason, there might just be something fundamental that we need to know about the way human brains respond to cognitive dissonance.

I've posted the following link elsewhere, but it is particularly relevant to this debate. There are known neurological facts which can potentially cut through mere opinions about the best persuasion tactics.

Scroll down and listen to the CAROL TAVRIS interview - and let me know if you think it leads anywhere!

http://www.pointofinquiry.org/

24. Good luck, Dawkins!

Comment #63933 by Ewan D on August 16, 2007 at 7:51 pm

Sue talks about the grains of truth, hidden among the garbage.

One interesting fact revealed by a reliable double-blind study is that there is, in fact, an above-average correlation between individuals' personalities, as described by themselves in questionnaires, and what would be expected from members of their zodiac signs, based on astrological literature.

On closer examination though, the correlation was only evident among those who'd studied astrology in enough depth to know what their traits are SUPPOSED to be, and this, consciously or otherwise, influenced the kinds of words and phrases they used to describe themselves.

There was zero correlation found in participants who had never read astrology.

25. Another Flea is Born

Comment #62454 by Ewan D on August 9, 2007 at 7:28 pm

Thanks BAFOZ! Popped into my mind when I saw a neon sign missing the all important modifier!

toddaa, looks like Thomas Huxley.

26. Another Flea is Born

Comment #62452 by Ewan D on August 9, 2007 at 7:18 pm

I for one think the Christian message is so beautiful, it deserves to be advertised on every church:

"Christ Died Temporarily For Our Sins"

Now that has a real ring to it.

27. The Out Campaign

Comment #62161 by Ewan D on August 8, 2007 at 12:55 pm

mightyzimbo, I'm about to read your article, but even on the basis of what you've just said I think you'll find scientific endorsement for your views in this Carol Tavris podcast..

http://www.pointofinquiry.org/

SRWB, I too enjoy the sport of a good debate, seasoned with well-aimed sarcasm and derision. But there's plenty evidence to support the niggling concern that it might be entirely counterproductive. I urge you to follow the link as well. And anybody who can't understand why seemingly intelligent people can be so exasperatingly stubborn and STUPID in the face of a good argument.

28. The Out Campaign

Comment #62114 by Ewan D on August 8, 2007 at 8:07 am

Is this the Mary Stevenson's "Footprints in the Sand" you were talking about, J? (!)

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/34168

29. The Flea Circus Invites a Newcomer!

Comment #62000 by Ewan D on August 7, 2007 at 8:41 pm

Here's some consciousness-raising insight for anybody locked in futile debate. (Carol Tavris podcast)

http://www.pointofinquiry.org/

30. The Flea Circus Invites a Newcomer!

Comment #60409 by Ewan D on August 1, 2007 at 8:17 pm

Yorker

"The thought just occurred to me that perhaps we try too hard to be fair and avoid confrontation. Since atheists are beginning to unite for political reasons it's inevitable that some of us will be less than perfect. If, in the long term things get heated and a few of get jailed or some end up with damaged reputations, so what?"

Not your finest hour

31. Charles Darwin - Legacy

Comment #56555 by Ewan D on July 16, 2007 at 11:46 am

Re Comment #55456 by AndyD

::laugh:: at Dawkins: "Hitler really gave eugenics a bad rep," unintentionally implying that eugenics isn't all bad. hahahahaha

For a further intro to Dawkins' thoughts on Eugenics, and evidence that they can indeed be willfuly misread, see the following -

http://www.richarddawkins.net/article,353,How-Predictable-Richard-Dawkins-Supports-Eugenics,Wesley-J-Smith

32. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #49720 by Ewan D on June 13, 2007 at 6:29 am

Thanks Philip for mentioning this link:

http://www.fcosonline.org/index.php?topic=5.msg32;topicseen#msg32

J deserves a standing ovation for that! No sign of a wee flea response as yet, which is an encouraging sign.

33. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #47653 by Ewan D on June 5, 2007 at 6:59 am

I'm glad it's apt! Cruel, of course, but like many others I've been worn out by David and his lazy fatuous dullness.

34. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #47643 by Ewan D on June 5, 2007 at 5:55 am

Yes NMcC, it was a spledid response. I can relate to your frustration and justified indignation. Christian minister may be only one of the jobs available to sharpies like David...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYFQZFL0yoo

35. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #47629 by Ewan D on June 5, 2007 at 5:18 am

David, where's your you-tube, you tube?

36. Richard Dawkins' lecture at the State House Convention Center

Comment #40639 by Ewan D on May 14, 2007 at 3:57 pm

Mortiz, seemingly the recording has been slowed down for some reason.

37. Richard Dawkins' lecture at the State House Convention Center

Comment #40603 by Ewan D on May 14, 2007 at 3:10 pm

Towards the end, one questioner singled out love as being self evidently contrary to Darwinism, and demanded an alternative explanation for its source. Dawkins set him right, using the evolutionary utility of lust as an analogy, and as this lecture shows...

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/16

...is well supported by Helen Fisher's research which identifies love (or one of its sub-categories, romantic infatuation) to be a drive, neurologically speaking, rather than an emotion.

38. Here Comes the Fourth Musketeer.

Comment #33691 by Ewan D on April 21, 2007 at 6:24 am

I'd second sane1's recommendation of Stenger. But surely this growing army of musketeers is incomplete without George H. Smith. His 'Atheism - the Case Against God' is really outstanding for its rationality, substance and precision. Hasn't anyone else read it?

http://www.amazon.com/Atheism-Case-Against-Skeptics-Bookshelf/dp/087975124X

39. Stephen Hawking Says Universe Created from Nothing

Comment #28177 by Ewan D on March 28, 2007 at 8:06 am

*LONG QUOTE ALERT*

From Victor Stenger's 'God - The Failed Hypothesis'



'...the existence of mass in the universe violates no law of nature. It can come from energy. But, where does the energy come from? The law of conservation of energy, also known as the first law of thermodynamics, requires that energy come from somewhere. In principle, the creation hypothesis could be confirmed by the direct observation or theoretical requirement that conservation of energy was violated 13.7 billion years ago at the start of the big bang.
However, neither observations nor theory indicate this to have been the case. The first law allows energy to convert from one type to another as long as the total for a closed system remains fixed. Remarkably, the sum of the measured sum of the rest and kinetic energies of the bodies in the universe seems to be exactly cancelled by the negative potential energy that results from their mutual gravitational interactions. Within small measurement errors and quantum uncertainties, the mean energy density of the universe is exactly what it should be for a universe that appeared from an initial state of zero energy, within a small quantum uncertainty.
A close balance between positive and negative energy is predicted by the modern extension of the big-bang theory called the inflationary big bang, according to which the universe underwent a period of rapid, exponential inflation during a tiny fraction of its first second. The inflationary theory has recently undergone a number of stringent observational tests that would have been sufficient to prove it false. So far, it has passed these tests with flying colors.
In short, the existence of matter and energy in the universe did not require the violation of energy conservation at the assumed creation. In fact, the data strongly support the hypothesis that no such miracle occurred. If we regard such a miracle as predicted by the creator hypothesis, then that prediction is not confirmed.'

Having taken Stenger's word for it as far as I can, I still share our resident Spinoza's gnawing discomfort!

40. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #27679 by Ewan D on March 26, 2007 at 5:40 am

'Ewan, did you edit your post and why? It was so much nicer without the exaggeration and insinuation. It is not a broad brush tarring of atheists. It is a refutation of the views I find here. Admittedly they are not broad.'

'As regards Harris I have written a reply to his 'Letter to a Christian Nation'. Not sure what could it would do 'publishing it' though.'

I edited my post to keep it more relevant to this thread as you refuse to answer digressions. (Or is that just the challenging ones you ignore?)

Post your 'Unbidden Reply from a Christian of a Different Nation' if you like. I'd be interested. I still think you're missing an opportunity to keep at the cutting edge of the debate and give Sullivan some support on that thread. Answer Sam's last letter. Picture him before you and set him right.

41. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #27148 by Ewan D on March 23, 2007 at 9:37 am

David, your well-nursed animosity towards Dawkins and your broad-brush tarring of atheists (just look at your last post) is keeping you busy, but what about offering some substance? Sam Harris is, as you say, brilliant. Are you going to have a shot at addressing his most recent installment?

42. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #26579 by Ewan D on March 20, 2007 at 3:07 pm

Oh yes - we're immune to reason and he's had enough. Well we can all relate to his exasperation.

43. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #26442 by Ewan D on March 19, 2007 at 10:36 am

Another excellent post, Stewart. As for David's silence, I hope it isn't that he's been barred again.

44. Do stop behaving as if you are God, Professor Dawkins

Comment #26082 by Ewan D on March 16, 2007 at 3:08 pm

Stuart:

'...once of the key characteristics to identify a psychopath is a lack of empathy. Maybe being a psychopath is a malfunction of your consciousness which cannot switch on empathy...'

You're right. The home of consciousness is of course the brain, and psychopatholgy can be the product of a localised in-born brain defect or brain damage through injury or deterioration affecting the neural mechanisms for compassion and empathy, fear, etc.

It doesn't make much sense to argue that such a person is morally responsible for his impulses, but if he's a risk to others and there's no cure there seems little alternative but to restrict his liberties. Such is the unfairness of the real world.

45. Do stop behaving as if you are God, Professor Dawkins

Comment #26071 by Ewan D on March 16, 2007 at 12:55 pm

Perhaps you can enlighten us, jgrice02, where others have failed. Give us one example of an item of reliable knowledge attained through a non-empirical channel. Just one.

Share some of your received knowledge.

46. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #26043 by Ewan D on March 16, 2007 at 8:06 am

Lucidly expressed Fedler, as always.

'...Underestimating, or actively belittling one's personhood...'

So much hinges on this willfully skewed vision. On the few occasions I was unfortunate enough to witness Bretheren meetings during my time dating a one-time member, I was nauseated by the constant and degrading self flagellation of the self-styled preachers. It was an ugly spectacle, but clearly the highlight of their week.

47. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #26013 by Ewan D on March 16, 2007 at 5:21 am

Further to Fedler's points on the evangelical obsession with the virtue of humility (and vice of pride) I wonder if it perhaps constitutes a meme which helps the carrier misallocate spiritual experience to an external source? 'Nothing that grand could come from within a humble wretch like me.' Belief in the transcendent requires an underestimation of that which it supposidly transcends.

(To pre-empt David, in case that last conjecture raised his hackles, there might equally be a humanist meme which leads the carrier to overestimate what the human can take credit for, or a materialist meme which entails an overestimation of what can be reduced to mindless material processes. David will have a field day with our memes, but he must find demonstrable violations of the apparent presumptions. And we love our parsimony, so if you don't mind, D, no sky-hooks.)

(P.S. Morality is an upper-level concept and function. It's reduction is its destruction. The materialist is perfectly at home with emergent properties, and has the common sense to study phenomena on a scale where they can be discriminated from other processes. Go too low, and yes, you get blind, wiggling forces - but so what? We don't live on that scale)

48. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #26007 by Ewan D on March 16, 2007 at 4:45 am

Robertson:

'Ewan D – you are very sweet. It must be nice to know that you have all understanding and knowledge and that anyone who dares to disagree with you can be explained away by their brain chemistry. Of course your atheist faith could never be explained in such a way?!'

You can be as patronising as you like, cutie-pie, but a considered response would be more interesting. I may have mischaracterised the mental state you experience during prayer and contemplation - only you can correct me. But if it bears all the psychological hallmarks of oxytocin release, I still think there are more parsimonious explanations than the idea that you're actually tuning in to The Creator. That's not ruled out, but sadly it turns out he's crap at conveying consistent, articulate, non-obvious messages across cultures.

Most plausible explanation? He is you. Now run away and play with yourself.

49. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #25564 by Ewan D on March 14, 2007 at 5:52 am

Spot-on, Steven.

50. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #25563 by Ewan D on March 14, 2007 at 5:50 am

And David, your habit of using our challenges against our own 'faith' doesn't work when the question in hand is a faith in an invisible loving father. Meditating on that belief has physical, psychoactive consequences related to parent-child bonding. I'm repeating this point because it is significant. We atheists can meditate on feeling loved and appreciated, and kickstart the same chemical chain reaction you enjoy. Does it really make sense to attribute the effect to a supernatural entity?