1. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178909 by keith on May 12, 2008 at 8:10 am

Artful,

By the way, typos seem to me to put paid to the brain/mind identification. A thought is not one and the same thing as the physical / material represetation of it. Hence, when we make spelling mistakes or typos the "word" or "thought" that we intended may be different from its actual, black and white (or whatever) representation of it. The message is independent of the medium. Do you see my point?

Yes. You made a mistake. All you are saying is that tripping down stairs is not the same thing as thinking about going down them successfully.

I think you'll have to concede that this is not the most profound thought you've ever given utterance to. Or perhaps it is?

2. On Fitna, the Movie

Comment #178904 by keith on May 12, 2008 at 8:07 am

What don't you get about the analogy?

This is a joke, right?

3. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178895 by keith on May 12, 2008 at 7:55 am

Artful,

riandouglas: Artful, how does something non-physical/immaterial [sic] interact with the physical/material? Wouldn't such interaction be subject to scientific inquiry? Why has no such interaction been observed?

Artful: This is a very good question riandouglas. This is one of the areas that I feel I need to explore a bit more.

Hmm, 'need to explore'. Does it need to be explored in the same way that the Shroud of Turin needs to be explored? That is, since nobody has come up with the desired results, just evidence to the contrary, it will be considered a work forever in progress rather than a lost cause?

Oh, the twisting and turning!

4. On Fitna, the Movie

Comment #178884 by keith on May 12, 2008 at 7:35 am

Colwyn,

I would call the old 'religions' that you mentioned 'mythologies' and the danger of any of these being resurrected is probably smaller than that of someone founding a brand new religion.

As for my use of "illness", I'm strictly speaking metaphorically. I don't think it's an ACTUAL disease caused by anything physical. Apologies for the confusion. I merely use it as an illustration.

Colwyn, I know you were speaking metaphorically and that you don't believe religion is an actual physical illness. Please, credit me with a little intelligence.

5. On Fitna, the Movie

Comment #178877 by keith on May 12, 2008 at 7:25 am

esuther,

Okay, Turkey shouldn't be described as a Muslim country but you seem to be objecting to the term per se, regardless of the country it is applied to. How about Saudi Arabia? (Of course, the population of a country doesn't have to be 100% homogenous for a label to make sense or have descriptive value).

6. I Am Evolution

Comment #178872 by keith on May 12, 2008 at 7:16 am

Of course I believe molecules.

I don't know if it's just a stylistic thing, but something near my ear shuddered when I read the above sentence. Surely something, like the word 'exist', should come after 'molecules'? As it stands, it sounds like molecules actually talk to us.

(I have just had a nauseating premonition that someone is going to write, "Well, you know Keith, in a metaphorical way, molecules really do talk to us." Please don't be that person).

7. On Fitna, the Movie

Comment #178863 by keith on May 12, 2008 at 7:00 am

Peace,

I liked your response, especially the bit about the distinction between the the cultural and the religious Muslim. That made sense to me.

I wasn't so wild about the analogy to Jews, since being a Muslim is surely a purely religious label, whereas being Jewish is notoriously hard to pin down, and 'race' is certainly one of the essential ingredients.

Colwyn,

Your post was also helpful though I'm still thinking about this comment:

If there were no Muslims, but Islam still existed...

This idea, that religion is like a disease in a petri dish, something that can lay dormant until let loose on an unsuspecting public, was precisely what I was taking issue with and what prompted me to comment in the first place. Can you have a religion without people? However, you have at least started me thinking about the possibilty.

8. I Am Evolution

Comment #178852 by keith on May 12, 2008 at 6:36 am

I like Proust's comment about the medical profession, which went something like, "You'd be a fool to believe in doctors - and you'd be an even bigger fool not to."

9. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178841 by keith on May 12, 2008 at 6:26 am

Evening, Peace,

I see a slight inconsistency between the first two statements and the second, but please correct me.

I suspect if you look at that sentence long enough you'll be able to correct it yourself.

10. On Fitna, the Movie

Comment #178838 by keith on May 12, 2008 at 6:19 am

I've got to admit that I'm a bit confused about this idea that the problem is with Islam, not with Muslims. This surely is like saying that Christianity rather than Christians, Fascism rather than Fascists, is the problem. Yet this makes no sense to me. If there were no Muslims then Islam wouldn't be a problem, in fact, it would even exist. After all, surely it is only the fact that there are Muslims that Islam is alive. If there were no Muslims, all that would be left would be memories of a now defunct religion plus the Koran, and the Koran on its own is not a religion. It's a book.

Please help me make some sense of this because I've heard it so often, even on this site, that I suspect I must be missing something.

11. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178830 by keith on May 12, 2008 at 5:44 am

Artful-Dodger,

No one has come up with anything like a credible account of how reason and morality can be shown to have a natualistic origin.

I have no idea if you are willing to accept the idea that evolution can explain why some people have blue eyes and others brown. Eye colour is, of course, something purely physical so if you are an enlightened believer, you might just be willing to concede evolution this much.

Possibly you only baulk at the idea that evolution can code for emotion or behaviour. However, if you look at maternal love, you'll agree that this love is not something physical like eye colour, but an emotion that leads to nurturing behaviour. Perhaps you'll want to argue that this love is not genetically but culturally transmitted. However, you will then have to explain why all other mammal mothers (plus other animals that nurture their young) demonstrate the same behaviour.

And if you are willing to entertain the idea that maternal love can be coded for genetically, why not other kinds of love, including moral behaviour and moral emotions? It's hardly a giant leap of imagination once you have found that genetically encoded love is possible. Try reading The Origins of Virtue by Matt Ridley for ideas about how and why this might have come about. There are various possibilities and each one of them is more likely and has more explanatory power than, 'God did it', which, you must admit, is a simple statement of opinion rather than an explanation.

Of course, you might want to argue that God put this maternal love, not only in humans, but in all his creatures. Even so, you'd then be admitting that there really is no great divide between humans and animals after all, and this surely is precisely where you wanted to end up in the first place.

In the worst case scenario, maybe you are not even prepared to accept that eye colour is genetically passed on rather than chosen by God, in which case I can only suggest that you start to read a little more widely.

12. Research Volunteers Needed

Comment #178275 by keith on May 11, 2008 at 4:15 am

Telic,

"Good people can still suffer bad luck."

I believe this was a trick question designed to confuse my scientific brain, and which almost made me click strongly agree ;p

Don't understand. Please explain.

13. Richard Dawkins interviewed by John Humphrys on Cardinal Murphy O'Connor

Comment #178235 by keith on May 11, 2008 at 1:36 am

Ed-words,

I suspect you're right. Sarcasm would have been a better word. Ever since Alanis Morrisette wrote 'Ironic' and it was pointed out that almost none of the situations she was describing were ironic, I've avoided using it for fear of misusing it. But I have to confess that I thought 'irony' was a blanket term that could include, among other things, sarcasm. I didn't know it was only used for situations. Now I do. Thanks.

14. Richard Dawkins interviewed by John Humphrys on Cardinal Murphy O'Connor

Comment #178032 by keith on May 10, 2008 at 10:07 am

Ed-words,

Yes, in England it would be rare too. I was joking. Maybe it is true after all that British people use irony more often than other nations.

15. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #178027 by keith on May 10, 2008 at 9:41 am

Clearmind,

Before I read your first post, when the only thing I knew about you was the name you had chosen, I knew that you must either be a witty chap with a talent for self irony or just a bit of a twat.

Calling yourself 'Clearmind' is a bit like having 'I'm great' tattooed on your forehead. Either it is meant as a self-effacing joke or, horror of horrors, the person actually believes that they are great/have a clear mind.

I don't want to jump to conclusions but I can't help thinking that you belong to the second category i.e. bit of a twat.

16. Richard Dawkins interviewed by John Humphrys on Cardinal Murphy O'Connor

Comment #178018 by keith on May 10, 2008 at 9:01 am

Fides,

Paula: Why was the Cardinal's lecture given such prominent billing on a national news programme AT ALL?

Fides: Clearly an admission that the Cardinal's response to Richard Dawkins et al should not be given a public forum. As I've said before, what is really being said is, I disagree with what you say, AND your right to say it.This has more than a hint of the totalitarian about it. text

I couldn't agree with you more. In many ways atheists are becoming like Stalin and Hitler. Atheists are often called to give expert opinion on the morality of stem cell research, abortion, and almost any other ethical matter you care to name, despite the fact that atheists have no special expertise in those fields.

And then of course you have the special TV programs for atheists, those programs, usually on a Sunday, where in the morning they talk in bland voices about nothing while wearing a smug, self-satisfied look, and in the evening they chant 'God is dead' for half an hour. If only the BBC would give the faithful that much TV time.

And as if that wasn't enough, they now want to demote the views of a real life cardinal from a prominent position on a national news program to that of well, a less prominent one that one might give to the views of just an ordinary person with no special knowledge AT ALL.

You are right. This does indeed smack of totalitarianism. The faithful are much put upon these days. Let's hope that The Lord comes to your rescue before the atheists start organising rallies and burning your holy books.

17. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #177995 by keith on May 10, 2008 at 7:29 am

Michael,

I think restricting voting to people who aren't stupid is a dangerous path to take. This is how it used to be. First only aristocracy had any kind of vote, then only gentlemen and then only men.

One of the dangers of going down the testing line is that if you don't want some group (eg black people) to vote you just have to deprive them of enough education that they fail the general knowledge test. Then you aren't being racist just sensible.

Hmm, the problem with this argument is that it could be used for practically any situation you care to name. Screening for defects in unborn babies? This could lead future governments to declare certain skin colours to be defects and to insist on abortion. Weapons checks at football matches? This could lead to security guards planting knives on people whose hairstyles they don't like.

I know, both of these scenarios are ridiculous but to my mind no more so than depriving black people, or any other group, of an education so that they slip into the 'stupid group' and are denied the vote.

If there were no drawbacks to your argument then I would agree with you. After all, why tempt unscrupulous politicians unnecessarily? And as you said, maybe we "should just educate people and put up with a bit of `noise' from the less well-educated."

The problem is that that 'noise' could well have been the difference between having Bush instead of Al Gore as president of America, something that has had repercussions for the whole world. Perhaps noise isn't as innocuous as it at first sounds. (Of course, here I'm assuming that more stupid people voted for Bush than Gore, which might not be the case).

Either way, in my opinion some people are so stupid that it is actually in their own interest, not to mention the interest of the rest of society, that someone else makes certain decisions for them. And of course, we already do this. This is why children can't vote. If lack of knowledge or simple stupidity shouldn't be a bar from voting, then any child old enough to make a cross on a piece of paper and tall enough to reach the ballot box on tiptoes should be allowed to vote too. Anything else would be discrimination. And for that reason I'd like to hear a few voices raised in support of discrimination.

Apart from all this, although I'm aware that my views are very subject to where I find myself in history, I can't help thinking that there is a very real difference between discriminating on the grounds of sex or how rich you are on the one hand, and your ability to make a sensible decision on the other. But hey, maybe I'm just stuck in my early 2000s way of thinking. And why not? How else am I supposed to think?

18. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #177982 by keith on May 10, 2008 at 5:59 am

Quetz,

I suppose it doesn't really matter that all riverrun's posts have disappeared since posterity was never going to pore over this thread. Even so, there is the feeling of it all having been a waste of time, almost as though we just imagined there being someone there to argue against; like pushing against a wall until it finally gives way to reveal that behind it lay - nothing.

19. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #177923 by keith on May 10, 2008 at 12:44 am

riverrun,

I genuinely have no idea what you're talking about in your above post. I think what you're attempting to do is to deflect sensible criticism by exaggerating it ten-fold under the guise of 'humour'. Is that it? I can honestly say that I didn't chuckle once. In fact, I found the whole thing depressingly silly.

On top of this, none of these exaggerated criticisms were made by me. Maybe you're mistaking me for another of the posters you're debating. I'm the one who queried a quote of Chomsky's that you posted several days ago. Had I known that you were going to go all round the houses and then still not answer the query, I promise I wouldn't have asked in the first place.

Incidentally, what happened to 'the missing post', the one that you posted then quickly deleted? You didn't even mention it in your last post? Why was that?

20. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #177907 by keith on May 10, 2008 at 12:05 am

riverrun,

Where has your last post gone that accused me of all sorts of things? It seems to have mysteriously disappeared.

21. Richard Dawkins interviewed by John Humphrys on Cardinal Murphy O'Connor

Comment #177902 by keith on May 9, 2008 at 11:36 pm

Well, it seems Richard Dawkins set the interviewer firmly on his petard.

Yes, and he hoist him firmly in his place, too.

22. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #177890 by keith on May 9, 2008 at 10:48 pm

AlexanderHeritage,

By managed you presumably refer to our ugly, short-lived, highly restricted, cult-obsessed, violence-based, pathetic and pitiable ancestors, living when people survived about 25 years (if they survived childhood) and spent 7 days a week at back breaking labour?

Not sure about the "7 days a week at back breaking labour". If our hunter-gather ancestors were anything like our hunter-gathers brothers of today, they probably spent lots of time sitting around on their arses chewing the fat.

Are you really only 20? I could barely spell at 20, let alone put sensible sentences together.

23. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #177871 by keith on May 9, 2008 at 9:33 pm

Riverrun,

I know Wheen personally, and have gotten drunk with him a few times in London and Belfast.

Does this mean that you just happened to be in the same pub as he was when he was getting drunk or that you are drinking buddies? Basically, if Francis Wheen bumped into you tomorrow, would he know your name?

The reason I'm here is to engage in debate, learn, and argue points about a wide variety of issues.

And what would you say you have learnt? I can't say I've seen much learning going on, though I have seen plenty of digging in of heels, entrenchment and blocking of ears. This is learning in the same way that a missile attack and subsequent retaliation are 'exchanges of ideas'.

One argument I have made is that there is an American Jewish scholar called Noam Chomsky who writes books, and is intensely vilified by people who have not read them. Which implies the attacks cannot be about what he has actually written.

Have you ever read Mein Kampf? Ever read the bible in its entirety? If not, any criticisms you have of Hitler and Jesus cannot be about what they actually wrote and said respectively. Or let me guess. You really have gone to the trouble of reading Mein Kampf and you really have got drunk with Jesus a few times in Galilee and Nazareth. With your also being on writing terms with Noam and drinking with Francis Wheen, I'm starting to see a theme developing here.

My own exposure to Chomsky is limited to a few on-line pieces, the (very long) transcript of a talk he gave at some American university, his exchange with Hitchens over his comments on 9/11 plus some random comments (not second or third hand) that it's impossible to avoid if you are connected to the internet. Chomsky's words are, like 'love' in the Wet Wet Wet song (actually, The Troggs did the original version), all around us, and not just in the corrupted, hand-me-down form.

Now, I know you will say that this is not enough to judge Chomsky by. Somehow we always feel that anything less than what we personally have read is not enough. But would you say that you can get a general feel for the man from such glimpses? In short, do we really have to read Mein Kampf in order to do justice to Hitler's ideas?

[Ed. The author of this comment wishes to reassure some sensitive readers that he is in no way suggesting that there are any similarities whatsoever between Adolf Hitler and Noam Chomsky. Or Jesus Christ. Thank you.]

24. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #177587 by keith on May 9, 2008 at 10:36 am

Windweaver,

Anyone with a modicum of intelligence...

Anyone with a modicum of intelligence wouldn't write 'anyone with a modicum of intelligence' because it is tantamount to saying, 'you're a great big, fat, ugly pig'. That is, it does nothing to refute an argument. For someone who is so averse to ad hominems you don't seem to mind using them yourself.

Anyone with a modicum of intelligence would know that when I accuse Al-Rawandi of losing credibility on this thread I am merely offering my own opinion.

Yes, and when I write that everyone hates you and they all wish you'd stop commenting, I am merely offering my own opinion, right?

Who,in the real world, goes around saying "you've lost credibility with me" when they're commenting in general on a political slanging match.

Nobody. A person in the real world would say, 'I disagree with you', whether they were commenting on a political slanging match or a tennis match. They wouldn't say anything about 'losing credibility' because this would sound like they were talking for other people and we wouldn't want that, would we?

And I'll continue to pull up anyone who calls Chomsky a "nit-wit", "idiot" etc. Just because Al admits that Chomsky can be brilliant at times doesn't excuse his appalling ad-hominem attacks on the man.

Yes, well, whether calling Chomsky a 'nit-wit' constitutes an "appalling ad-hominem" is a matter of opinion. For those of a very delicate nature, I suppose it might.

And I've another bone to pick with you Keith. You've done the same thing you did back in 2007 on the Chomsky thread-entered this debate with the sole aim of vilifying and discrediting a man whose work you admit you haven't even read.

Actually, that's not stricly true. If you look back you'll see that what I was objecting to was not his body of work, which I'm more than happy to admit that I'm not familiar with, but instead a few sentences he sent to riverrun who then posted them to this site. They made no sense to me then and still don't. That's why I commented on them. For what reason do I have to read all Chomsky's works to be able to comment on the two or three sentences of his that I really have read?

bla bla sole aim of vilifying and discrediting a man whose work you admit you haven't even read. Here's what you said at the time:
"And of course you're right, I have read almost nothing by Chomsky. Why would I? How many times do you have to tread in dogshit before you know you don't like it?"

Well, thank goodness. For one moment I thought you were going to dredge up a quote that I was reluctant to stand by.

Actually, I'm quite impressed that you went to the trouble of delving back into the archives of 2007 for that gem. I'm sure I wouldn't have bothered.

I leave it to readers of this thread to draw their own conclusions about you and your contributions to this debate.

Quite right too. After all, heaven forbid that you should try to influence them, eh?

25. The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing

Comment #176830 by keith on May 8, 2008 at 6:12 am

j.mills,

Finished it last week, great stuff. Oddly organised, with the first half top-heavy with biology and the second with the 'hard' sciences, but endlessly engaging and a good 'climax'.

I probably won't get round to reading it so come on, spoil it for me; what happens in the end? (Look away those of you who don't want to know).

26. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #176817 by keith on May 8, 2008 at 5:50 am

Windweaver,

Al, okay you don't like the guy and think he's a liar.I can accept that. But why do you have to stoop to calling Chomsky a nit-wit. You're losing all credibility the longer this debate continues.

That claim sounded awfully all-inclusive, as though the majority of members of this site were slowly lining up against Al, and I suspect that isn't really the case. Perhaps in future you ought to limit such comments to saying that Al has lost all credibility with you, rather than suggesting that this is a widespread phenomenon.

Truth be told, even if he turned out to be wrong about Chomsky (which I suspect he isn't), I would still prefer the way he has argued. There's been far less posturing and a far greater attempt to answer awkward questions, rather than select the questions he can deal with and leave the rest unanswered.

And let's be honest Windweaver, trying to make out that it is some kind of crime to call Chomsky a nit-wit in the context of a heated argument is in reality just a bit of mischief-making on your part. Al has said all along that Chomsky has done some brilliant stuff in the past so he clearly doesn't think that Chomsky is a nit-wit - just a liar. Such literal-mindedness on your part really does you no credit, at all.

27. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #176801 by keith on May 8, 2008 at 4:36 am

Alovrin,

And keith (or Reg) if you prefer( how apt you pick him).

Why apt? Because I too left my clothes on a beach and feigned my own suicide?

I didnt say I support any thing Rousseau wrote, twit.

Wow, you're really are volatile, aren't you? And this is especially funny because I never suggested that you did support Rousseau. I was letting you know that I knew about his 'noble savage' idea. Calm down a little and you might not get things so twisted.

Noble savage heard of that concept?

Er, if you look I actually included it in my post and you even used it when quoting me. Perhaps you ought to lie down for a while. Oh, just before you sedate yourself, commas heard of that concept?

28. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #175786 by keith on May 6, 2008 at 3:15 am

Quetz,

It's now three times. You missed post 224, which is the same but with an extra paragraph at the beginning. Posts 230 and 237 are the shortened versions of this original.

29. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #175784 by keith on May 6, 2008 at 3:08 am

riverrun,

I've argued my case, in response to Keith's original question to me.

Question? What question? As far as I know I didn't ask you about Sam Harris, at least not regarding the things you've written about. The only thing I can think of is this:

Though I have no idea what Sam Harris's views on a nuclear strike are, I completely agree with his position on torture. How about you?

What I was asking you was whether you agreed with Sam Harris on torture. However, what you have written about doesn't touch on this.

Maybe I'm going nuts and I did ask you. Or maybe you were determined to write about these things, whether asked or not?

30. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #175749 by keith on May 6, 2008 at 1:06 am

riverrun,

You're your own worst enemy. I got this far and then gave up:

When it comes to state crimes the intellectual class have a rare gift for conformity. After all, they know which side their bread is buttered on, and would hate to become toast. A kind of faith in the benign intent is commonly implicit, if not explicit. Safely distant from reality, this soi-disant class can't help themselves in joining the doctrinal hymn, singing chorals to democracy, freedom and ineluctable "exceptionalism", a word metaphorically carved on the gravestone of each and every empire. They are always forgiving of the odd bum note, but sing a dissonant one, outside the accepted range, and you're out, usually accompanied by a stream of furious epithets. For those who sing within doctrinally accepted octaves, the song remains the same: Hymns with titles like "Operation Enduring Freedom" are sung without the slightest hint of irony, or appreciation of the phrasal verb "endure", meaning 'to put up with despite the hardship'.

I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about and even less enthusiasm to make the effort to find out. I have no idea what either 'the benign intent', 'soi-disant class', 'ineluctable' or 'exceptionalism' mean. I suppose I could look them up, but why should I have to?

Surely the reason for using metaphors and 'flowery langauge' is to make things clearer, perhaps to make visual some abstract idea. I'm damned if any image at all comes to mind on reading this other than Darwin's 'entangled bank' that he moaned about getting caught up in at the end of The Origin of Species.

In one of my previous posts I said that I was having difficulty understanding you. You put this down to your use of nuance. My thought at the time was that you were being overly charitable - towards yourself. I can more or less get to grips with nuance but lack of clarity tends to floor me. However, I held my tongue for once. I now see that I should have just blurted out what was on my mind, which was: please write more clearly.

As to my views on the Chomsky quote that you asked for, did you actually read them? Did you agree or disagree with them? When you said you would be interested in hearing my views, did you mean that as a simple statement of fact and not a request for me to actually write them down?

Incidentally, 'endure' isn't a phrasal verb, though 'put up with' is.

31. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #175742 by keith on May 6, 2008 at 12:41 am

Lastgreekstanding,

Sam Harris is out of his league here.

Which league did you have in mind? The league that agrees with your point of view? The league that advocates the same reading list as you? If that's the case, why not simply say that you don't agree with him rather than getting all sniffy about his credentials?

So, let's hear why you think he's not up to this particular task. You seem to be insinuating that Sam doesn't know his arse from his elbow on the question of Islam but that you do.

Okay, fire away...

32. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #175654 by keith on May 5, 2008 at 7:37 pm

riverrun,

Keith. I'm keen to here your response to the quote from Chomsky:

"There are certainly dangers in holding on to unverifiable beliefs. The most dangerous, I think, are secular state worship, of the Harris-Hitchens variety. The atrocities they support go vastly beyond anything attributable to Islamic fundamentalism".

I'll take them sentence by sentence.

There are certainly dangers in holding on to unverifiable beliefs...

In the first place, I find this a strange thing to say; almost meaningless. There are many things that are unverifiable including Humanism, Nazism as well as 'secular state worship'. But these are ways of living, not facts that can be proven to be either true or false. Maybe I have simply misunderstood the meaning of verifiable. Either way, why a belief in these things should be dangerous, not because of their content, but simply by dint of being unverifiable, is unclear to me. If we can't verify atheism, is it therefore dangerous?

The most dangerous, I think, are secular state worship, of the Harris-Hitchens variety...

As mentioned before, I don't understand why 'secular state worship' should be singled out as uniquely dangerous. Also I don't understand why 'belief' has now morphed into 'worship'. Or rather I do. By turning a belief into worship, it has gone from being something respectable to something mystically unreasonable. This is precisely the tactic that religionists use to attack atheists: we worship Richard Dawkins, we worship science, so we are therefore as irrational as the people we are attacking. The insinuation here is that Harris and Hitchens are so fanatical in their love of the secular state that their vision of reality and their moral instinct has become warped and twisted. Had they been described instead as believers in, or supporters and defenders of, the secular state, such an insinuation would not have been possible.

This is actually my main gripe against Chomsky: I feel that there's often more than a grain of truth in what he says. The problem is that this grain then becomes, for him, the whole beach. In my own view, neither Sam Harris nor Christopher Hitchens worship the secular state. They support it.

The atrocities they support go vastly beyond anything attributable to Islamic fundamentalism.

As stated before, I don't think either men supported the atrocities in Maoist China, Kissinger's cynical actions in Chile and other countries, or Clinton's missile attack. Hitchens and maybe Harris supported the invasion and subsequent policing of Iraq, which I also do with some reservations. This, to me, was not an atrocity. However, one man's atrocity is another man's best course of action.

Whether or not Harris and Hitchens' support for this invasion can be construed as a blind worshipping of the secular state rather than it being a thought-through position is a matter of opinion. Clearly it is in Chomsky's interest to depict it as such. By calling it 'worship' he can dismiss it out of hand.

Neither do I believe that any 'atrocities' that Harris and Hitchens are said to support (though I'm by no means sure to which atrocities Chomsky is referring and I feel he should be more specific here), are likely to 'go vastly beyond anything attributable to Islamic fundamentalism'.

I find decapitation and stoning atrocious enough, and simply because many more people may have died due to decisions taken by the heads of secular states than those beheaded by Islamic Fundamentalists, hardly means that these are more atrocious, or that these atrocities are automatically defended by supporters of the idea of the secular state.

Without knowing exactly which Harris-Hitchens-supported atrocities Chomsky is referring to, it is hard to say much more. Maybe you could ask him which ones he has in mind?

33. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #175620 by keith on May 5, 2008 at 5:56 pm

_Riverrun_,

Sorry for getting your name wrong. I also like Joyce, though I'm still working my way through Ullyses. I doubt that I'll ever make a start on Finnegan's Wake, since I'm told it's virtually impenetrable.

Anyway, thanks for the reply. This time I get it. I'm still not sure why you believe that secular state worship is the most dangerous kind of unverifiable belief, but at least I know that you do.

34. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #175608 by keith on May 5, 2008 at 5:24 pm

River_run,

Thanks for the comments. Even so, I found your argument a little difficult to follow. Is it not possible to put it more simply?

Let me ask again, do you agree with the following quote from Chomsky?

There are certainly dangers in holding on to unverifiable beliefs. The most dangerous, I think, are secular state worship, of the Harris-Hitchens variety. The atrocities they support go vastly beyond anything attributable to Islamic fundamentalism.

Without wanting to distract you too much from the above question, I just wanted to comment on the following comment you made:

His [Harris's] positions on torture and the possible need for a nuclear strike, are well documented.

(Can you imagine the response had Chomsky written even a sentence close to this? I'll leave that with you as a thought experiment.)

With "had Chomsky written even a sentence close to this", I imagine you mean "if Chomsky held these views", right? Hmm, this can hardly be categorised as a 'thought experiment' since the answer is obvious. The same people who are up in arms about Sam Harris's views would also be up in arms if Chomsky held them. What else could be the case? You appear to think that Chomsky is maligned simply for being Chomsky, when in reality he is maligned for his views.

Though I have no idea what Sam Harris's views on a nuclear strike are, I completely agree with his position on torture.

How about you?

35. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #175595 by keith on May 5, 2008 at 4:53 pm

Peacebeuponme,

I didn't get the quotes quite right as I was working from memory so maybe I didn't do Chomsky justice. The following is, in fact, what was said:

Chomsky: He [Hitchens] must be unaware that he is expressing such racist contempt for African victims of a terrorist crime, and cannot intend what his words imply.

Hitchens: I "must be unaware," he [Chomsky] writes, that I "express such racist contempt for African victims of a terrorist crime." With his pitying tone of condescension, and his insertion of a deniable but particularly objectionable innuendo, I regret to say that Chomsky displays what have lately become his hallmarks...Thus I think I am indeed "unaware," with or without Chomsky's lofty permission, of my propensity for racist contempt.

Chomsky: Hitchens claims that I accused him of a "propensity for racist contempt." I explicitly and unambiguously said the opposite.

Whether what Chomsky said is really the opposite of what Hitchens thought he said, is a moot point. However, the suggestion that he was expressing racist contempt was what Hitchens was objecting to. The fact that this then translated itself in his mind into an accusation of him having 'a propensity' for racist contempt was not wholly accurate though understandable. Either way, Chomsky's analysis that anybody who couldn't see the equivalence between the 9/11 attacks and Clinton's missile attack on the Sudanese factory was expressing racist views still stood and didn't go down well with anyone who thought that both acts were wrong but that they weren't necessarily equivalent.

36. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #175578 by keith on May 5, 2008 at 4:15 pm

River-run,

Thanks for the reply. I have to admit that I got a little lost in the details since I was only asking a fairly simple question about your opinion on the Chomsky quote. I already knew Chomsky's opinion because it was there in the quote itself.

I have to say that some of your pasted quotes, for example, the whole first part where Hitchens defends Chomsky, didn't really relate to my question. I'm well aware that Hitchens believed, and still believes, that Chomsky was a wonderful observer of some world issues in past decades and Hitchens makes no secret of this.

The question I posed was, do you agree with the following quote from Chomsky?

There are certainly dangers in holding on to unverifiable beliefs. The most dangerous, I think, are secular state worship, of the Harris-Hitchens variety. The atrocities they support go vastly beyond anything attributable to Islamic fundamentalism.

I had Initially thought that 'atrocities' here was referring to the invasion of Iraq, but from your last post, I understand that Chomsky was referring to the millions of deaths in China due to Mao's reforms, and perhaps even the missile attack on the Sudan pharmaceutical factory.

I don't want to get into too many details about who supported what; I don't, for example, believe that either Hitchens or Harris supported either Mao's policies in China or Clinton's decision to attack the Sudanese factory. In fact, Hitchens was one of the first to denounce the latter. This only came into question when Chomsky attempted to find an equivalence between the Sudanese rocket attack and the 9/11 attacks and subsequently to accuse Hitchens, if not exactly of being a racist, then of acting from racist motives. This was because Hitchens refused to see both attacks as being equally morally outrageous.

Chomsky's fine distinction between 'being a racist 'and 'acting from racist motives' was lost on Hitchens and, quite frankly, most other people at the time. I have to say that I found Chomsky's attempt to subsequently deny ever having called Hitchens a racist an exercise in pure sophistry.

Whatever. As I have said, none of this is really the issue and I'm digressing in the same way I accused you of having done earlier. So, let me get back to my original question. Please correct me if you think I'm putting words into Chomsky's mouth, something he claims that his critics regularly do.

In the above quote, Chomsky seems to be saying that the atrocities supported by Harris and Hitchens - the missile attack on the Sudanese factory, perhaps even the millions of deaths from starvation in Maoist China, things that in reality neither men supported, at all - had something to do with their 'worshipping' of secularism.

Now, it seems to me that it is possible to support secularism without supporting atrocities and whether Chomsky wishes to call Harris and Hitchens' support of secularism 'worship' is up to him. I'm sure they wouldn't put it quite like that. Either way, would you go along with Chomsky in saying that this support/worship of secularism is dangerous, in fact, according to Chomsky, the most dangerous of all 'unverifiable beliefs'? If so, why is it precisely worship of secularism rather than say, 'theocracy worship', that is the most dangerous? Is the underlying suggestion, perhaps, that it inevitably leads to Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot? Where have we heard this argument before?

Could you let me know your opinions on this, perhaps without too many quotes from Chomsky, since, as I stated before, I'm not sure just how relevant some of your previous quotes were and some only served to make both of us take our eye off the ball of what was the real issue. Thanks.

37. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #175130 by keith on May 4, 2008 at 2:05 pm

River_run,

There are certainly dangers in holding on to unverifiable beliefs. The most dangerous, I think, are secular state worship, of the Harris-Hitchens variety. The atrocities they support go vastly beyond anything attributable to Islamic fundamentalism.

Since you have gone to the trouble of posting the above quote by Chomsky on this website, it would interest me to know if you agree with it. If so, can you give reasons. If not, why did you post it? Would you say that Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens support atrocities? If so, can you give details?

38. Muslim Rebel Sisters: At Odds With Islam and Each Other

Comment #175036 by keith on May 4, 2008 at 8:22 am

While we are on the topic, what do you think of Westerners who voluntarily act as a vehicle to the infiltration of radical Islam?

I think they're very naughty. What do you think, Bonzai?

39. Muslim Rebel Sisters: At Odds With Islam and Each Other

Comment #175010 by keith on May 4, 2008 at 5:39 am

Vinelectric,

Fanusi Khiyal

...any opnion that does not conform with the way you see the world is automatically disregarded.

Surely that's true of everyone, isn't it? Or are you claiming that you carefully read Fanusi's posts, mull them over for an hour or two to see if they are capable of converting you to his way of seeing things, and only then dismiss them? If so, you're the most open-minded person I've met.

My target audience is anyone with the sense or interest in knowing the other side to the story. Such is life, there always is.

Yes, there are usually two sides to every story and one of them is usually wrong.

With your lack of any substantial contact with the culture you're attacking (you amditted you could not understand the arabic websites I linked to you once) then you need to be slightly more open minded, so that you become better informed on your subject of fetish-like interest.

Having written the above, how would defend Richard Dawkins from those who claim that he isn't close enough to the religious community to really understand religion? Are you like Chris Hedges, who thinks that because he has worked in Arab countries for many years and has many Arab friends, that he is in a unique position to offer an unbiased view of Arab affairs? Isn't it just as dangerous to be too close to something as to be too distant?

As regards language, by your logic, unless you know Russian, German, French and Spanish, you aren't allowed to offer up an opinion on War and Peace, Faust, Remembrance of Things Past or Don Quixote respectively?

I would say that restricting yourself to just what was originally written in your own language is a recipe for a narrow-minded worldview. Reading in translation is a much better idea unless, of course, you're prepared to master every language to almost-native speaker level. As far as I can see, it is better to read Crime and Punishment in translation than try to muddle through it armed only with your schoolboy Russian and a dusty dictionary. Of course, if you are bilingual that's great, but if you aren't, this shouldn't bar you from taking part in debates. Neither should the criticism 'You don't really understand' be constantly hanging over your head every time you disagree.

I find it odd that you have such little faith in professional translators. Do you think they have completely distorted the message of the Koran? If so, why not put it right yourself and earn yourself not only lots of money, but also the plaudits of people around the world?

You can not even begin to absolve yourself from the responsibility of seeking some kind of unbiased source.

This, surely, is the crux of the problem: Where to find an unbiased source and how to recognise it when you find it. Is such a thing even possible? I would suggest that it isn't as easy as you're suggesting. By the way, would your 'unbiased source' be a source you agree with, by any chance?

40. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #174997 by keith on May 4, 2008 at 4:44 am

epeeist,

From what you are saying, it sounds like ideas on religion have polarised. I'd like to think that those that were in the middle ground - the C of E and Catholics, by the sound of it - have drifted over to us, rather than joining the Fundamentalists. Any idea if this is true or not?

41. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #174974 by keith on May 4, 2008 at 2:31 am

MPhil,

...I think the quality of education at home - the fact that many patients don't encourage learning, trusting the scientific method etc...

This has to be the most perfect example of a Freudian slip.

Corylus,

It starts off with some dreadful individual saying to Ben Stein 'You are like the smartest man I know'.

Did the interviewee state in what way Ben Stein was like the smartest man he knew? Same hairstyle? Similar taste in clothes?

42. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #174653 by keith on May 3, 2008 at 4:15 am

Eagles12,

Wow! I can't believe Richard's arrogance. After close examination of the human cell how can anyone question the evidence for a designer? Not one scientific fact supports evolution yet blinded humanists continue to believe it because they can't bear the thought that there is a final authority to whom they must give an account.

Eagle, I'm with you on this one. I have also wondered what Evolutionists do all day: Go round pretending to examine imaginary fossils? Go to conferences on evolution as part of a conspiracy to pretend they're all talking about something real? Do they sidle up to geneticists and try to persuade them that they can see changes in the DNA of one of God's immutable creatures? If so, and I believe it is, what a stupid waste of time and money! And it's us that pay their taxes!

On the other hand, I would happily fund research into a genuine subject, something solid like, say, Theology. There, at least, we have some genuine evidence and not just imaginary data. And as for the Holy Bible, who could doubt the veracity of such wisdom?

Even so, there is one thing that bothers me a little. If Richard Dawkins is really hiding the fact that he and all his fellow evolutionists don't have a single fact about the truth of evolution, he really should admit it. After all, denying the reality of Our Lord is a serious business and even Professor Dawkins knows the consequences of such an action: precisely, amigo mio, we're talking an eternity in hell.

Surely RD must know he's bound there in a few years' time. After all, he's not a spring chicken. Why would he consciously choose a few more years of fame, knowing that the price he'll pay is to be skewered on the end of a kebab-stick? Forever!

My only conclusion is that he really doesn't know that he's denying Our Father the Creator and that he genuinely believes in all this nonsense about genes and fossils. And this is my point: if this really is the case, can we still call his denial of God 'arrogance'. Can we accuse someone of arrogance for not believing in something? To believe in God and then to deny Him, sure, that's arrogance. But the Prof. doesn't seem to believe in Him in the first place.

Therefore Mr. Eagle, shouldn't RD's crime be commuted to that of simple ignorance? I rest my case and leave the matter in your wise hands.

43. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #174616 by keith on May 3, 2008 at 1:19 am

kjmastaw,

It seems to me that if Dawkins (and all atheists for that matter) is right, none of us will ever know - because we'll all be dead forever. So, the believers in God and eternal life will have only been fools for a lifetime.

However, if Dawkins is wrong, he and all atheists will be shown to be fools for an eternity.

This would be true if we chose what we believe. However, we believe what we believe and no amount of telling ourselves how convenient it would be to believe otherwise can change our minds. This is why Pascal's Wager makes no sense.

Even so, riding to the rescue is a phenomenon called 'wishful thinking', whereby weak-willed and dishonest people try to convince themselves that the truth is not what it seems. This takes all kinds of mental gymnastics but some people do manage to fool themselves, if not completely, then at least at some level of consciousness.

Religious people often point to uncertain data that seems to suggest that they live longer, are happier, recover from illness quicker and that their males have larger sex organs. For some strange reason this often indicates to them that God is real and that Jesus really is our saviour. To me, what their unseemly rush to accentuate the positive reasons for believing in God indicates, is that these people have their eyes very firmly set on whatever will benefit them and would believe in Santa Claus if they thought it would buy them an extra day on Earth. Just ask yourself, if they really believe that they are going to a 'better place', why they are just as scared of death as we are? And how do they manage to do embarrassing things like go for a dump, pick their noses, and have sex (perhaps with themselves), if they really believe that He is always watching? The truth is that deep down they don't really believe it, at all. As Bertrand Russell pointed out, it is precisely for this reason that they are so touchy about the subject of religion. If they were more sure of their beliefs, they wouldn't care what others said about them.

This is why I think the best tactic to adopt when arguing with a religious person is to put on an ironic, knowing, half-amused smile that seems to be just on the verge of bursting into fully-fledged laughter, a smile that seems to be saying, "You little kidder! You're doing this on purpose, aren't you? Please stop now or I'll have to laugh out loud." What you actually say with words is irrelevant because they are immune to logic and since the Enlightenment hundreds of years of rational argument haven't swayed them yet, so I don't think it's ever likely to. Okay, it must be bloody annoying to have someone smirk at you while you are in the process of deceiving yourself, but what other course is open to us when rationality no longer counts for anything?

By the way, Pascal's Wager is not the all-gain tactic it at first seems. The price the religious pay for this self-deception is an occasional nagging doubt that they haven't looked at things quite squarely. Added to this drawback is the disadvantage of having to wear an inane, self-satisfied grin to all public places. Such smugness, of course, annoys most right-minded people they come into contact with. Whether they continue to wear this grin in private is a matter for speculation.

Incidentally, even if Richard Dawkins and all other atheists turn out to be wrong on the day of judgment we still won't have been foolish. With the evidence we have available, only a fool would believe in God, even if he does turn out to be right. And why would God reward such foolishness?

44. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #174597 by keith on May 2, 2008 at 10:14 pm

Alovrin,

The obvious conclusion I would have thought ...a hint. Rousseau. Can you work it out now?

That would be the Rousseau who is pretty much dismissed nowadays for his naive and romantic belief in the noble savage? Though I'm vaguely aware of who Rousseau is, I have no idea how he relates to your comments. Perhaps it would be easier if you simply said what's on your mind rather than leaving tantalising hints regarding famous personages you have (or haven't) read.

Now I would like to deal with one person on this AI if he wants to. And as it is an open forum you can follow the exchange that is what I would prefer, you can throw in your thoughts but I will probably not respond if I am engaged with Al.

Hmm, tempting as it is for me to comment and then be totally ignored I think I'll decline your kind offer. Thanks anyway. Still, I have to say that you're the first person I've met who isn't capable of responding to more than one poster at a time. If you're so set on talking only to Al, why not use the personal messaging system instead of this forum? Or do you perhaps think that your interchange with him will make a great spectator event?

45. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #174358 by keith on May 2, 2008 at 9:36 am

I remember Hitchens saying that Chomsky has in later years adopted 'a pitying tone of condescension' and that really is what comes through most strongly in the above remarks. I can't imagine either Richard Dawkins or Dan Dennett resorting to such condescension in a so-called rebuttal. Actually, it was less a rebuttal than an exercise in name calling.

There was even one part that made no sense to me at all.

Chomsky: Assuming he is not illiterate, he is objecting to my position at the time that the US should put in ground troops to deter impending "genocide" (my word). It would be interesting to know why.

What does this mean? That if he is indeed illiterate then he isn't objecting to Chomsky's position? Where is the relevance of literacy in all this? And this man is supposed to be one of our top intellectuals? Jeez, we are in a bad state.

46. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #174348 by keith on May 2, 2008 at 8:07 am

Alovrin,

Keith: Maybe the 'obvious conclusion' isn't so obvious because I have no idea what it is. And for those who aren't so slow, what's wrong with coming to obvious conclusions? It's only a bad idea if they are wrong. Obvious conclusions are, more often than not, right.

Alovrin: Wrong.
And as to your other point...

This, I suppose, does constitute an answer of sorts, but as far as an explanation as to why I'm wrong goes, it's not exactly overloaded with detail, is it?

And as to your other point very little is known because we have to reconstruction from what was left. And all we can do is make educated guesses.

This was precisely my point. If we have to reconstruction the past from such scant evidence, what leads you to assume that "for most of humanities existence on this planet there were many groupings that could probably be said to be communistic"? I could equally claim, and with just as little evidence, that for most of humanity's existence on this planet there were many groupies that could probably be said to be proto-Capitalist. Without evidence to back up our assertions, either of us can claim whatever we like. I'm quite willing to believe that what you say is true and perhaps the evidence really is there. I just want you to tell me what it is.

Butt out keith.

What, you mean I shouldn't disagree with you on a public forum? Perhaps you've misunderstood the nature of an open debate.

47. Pat Condell: Anthology DVD available now!

Comment #174281 by keith on May 2, 2008 at 1:54 am

Robotaholic,

Wow, that is by far the worst avatar I've seen! Trying to read a comment with so much going on next to it is like trying to watch a movie while the bloke next to you plays his favourite thrash metal record full volume.

Any chance of you changing it for something less annoying?

48. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #174245 by keith on May 1, 2008 at 11:36 pm

Teratornis,

Ben should realize that ID is just a theory, and thus it could be wrong.

I think you are being too generous. Calling ID 'a theory' is like calling me 'a singer' because I sometimes sing in the bath.

49. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #174233 by keith on May 1, 2008 at 11:18 pm

alovrin,

...I would...say that for most of humanities existence on this planet there were many groupings that could probably be said to be communistic, but of course they wouldnt have called themselves that or have even known what it meant. But there is very little record of this.

If there's little record of this, how do you come to this conclusion?

It doesnt transfer successfully to a large scale it seems, something that often happens.
And please dont jump to the obvious conclusion.

Maybe the 'obvious conclusion' isn't so obvious because I have no idea what it is. And for those who aren't so slow, what's wrong with coming to obvious conclusions? It's only a bad idea if they are wrong. Obvious conclusions are, more often than not, right.

50. Pat Condell: Anthology DVD available now!

Comment #174227 by keith on May 1, 2008 at 11:09 pm

I think the adjective to describe Pat Condell's diatribes is 'unhelpful'. This is only a problem for those who feel that all opinions should, in some way, be 'helpful'.