1. Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #205945 by Shane McKee on July 8, 2008 at 12:42 am

"God's Undertaker" is much better than Alister McGrath's effort, but it trots out the same old crap arguments. It's a major wriggling effort on Lennox's part.

One of the difficulties (and this applies to McGrath too) is that Lennox is sometimes painted as a "scientist" when he's in fact no such thing. A philosopher of science is not the same as a scientist. He is also a highly verbal thinker, and this restricts his vision quite dramatically (he's like McGrath in this too - what is it about our wee Northern Ireland that it keeps producing people like this??) - for instance, the word "faith" undergoes about 10 costume changes in the first 5 minutes - it's worse than Kylie. Yet Lennox still insists he's talking about the same thing.

The bottom line is that, like McGrath and McGrath's conscious role model (and another Northern Ireland disaster) CS Lewis, Lennox's intelligence is hugely over-rated. He can put the words together and *sound* clever, but underlying it all is a basic failure to structure a cogent argument. Or maybe it's that he uses fancy verbage to fool himself.

In general terms, I think we need to look into the thought patterns of people who think this way - if we could break 'em, it would be a huge step forward. But humanity's capacity for self-deception is truly remarkable. This may be unachievable.

2. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #205566 by Shane McKee on July 7, 2008 at 1:05 pm

Minor point: if there are 400 species, and they haven't changed at all, HOW THE FECK CAN WE SAY THERE ARE 400 SPECIES?!?!

Sorry about the shouting, but I was worried that I mightn't be heard above Yahya's stupid. Incidentally, I was talking to a couple of Turkish geneticists last year, and they assured me that this person is regarded in Turkey itself as a consummate fraud.

3. Is the Universe Actually Made of Math?

Comment #197278 by Shane McKee on June 21, 2008 at 2:45 pm

Steve, re the singularities malarkey, yes, I tend to agree, and largely base this on Tegmark's ideas - inside a black hole, the mathematics breaks down, or, rather, it's a "place" that looks like it's there, only it isn't. Like a hole in a pair of tights. The maths just wraps around it.

I may be completely wrong of course, but this is how I visualise it. Tegmark says that our universe needn't be an iterative state/operator thing - I'm not sure I agree - the fact that we have such a thing as "time" (and, specifically, iterative stuff like thermodynamics and evolution) suggests that the "bird's eye view" is only gettable by plodding iteration through multiple frog's eye views, although of course these iterations don't need "time" outside the system - they just feel like "time" within it.

Yeah, it's mind-bogglingly crazy, but I would have thought that we were used to that sort of thing by now. Counter-intuitive isn't necessarily crazy - what's crazy is the assumption that our evolved intuition presents us with an accurate formulation of the substructure of reality...

Some of the responses to William Lane Craig's (incredibly lame) "kalam" cosmological argument for god are themselves lame. Why there is anything at all is a very reasonable question, and one worthy of an answer. I think the MUH is the answer.

4. Is the Universe Actually Made of Math?

Comment #196447 by Shane McKee on June 20, 2008 at 1:49 am

Indeed. I think this is an interesting concept - the true nature of something is not in what it "is", but in what it *does*, and that is tied up in its relationships. So if we want to investigate something, we can treat it as a black box; fire "inputs" at it, and look for the outputs. Those represent the relationships that the black box has with the "outside world".

However, any and all such relationships can be treated mathematically; where Tegmark goes further is to suggest that there is one mathematical structure in which we reside, but that mathematical structure contains within itself the capacity to compute any other structure - in other words, it's Turing-complete.

Such a structure is probably quite complicated, but it doesn't have to be. Conway's Game of Life is Turing-complete, so in principle (assuming our universe *is* computable), a "Life" universe could even host a simulation of our own universe.

But if we could simulate our universe (let's say, if we found the "Theory of Everything"), then we would be in the position I described earlier, where we could turn off the computer, and from the viewpoint of any entities in the simulation, everything would appear to just carry on regardless - all that would happen would be that the simulated universe [SU] and the "real" universe [RU] would become de-coupled (or, rather, the "read only" window by which the RU could view the SU would be closed.

The way I conceive it (and I sure don't have the maths nous to argue with MPhil!) is that our universe can be thought of as a State (number) and an Operator (transforming function). The Operator is equivalent to the "Theory of Everything", whereby the State at time t is transformed into the State at time t 1. And so on and so forth.

Pace, Einstein - I don't know how relativity fits into this, and there may be other ways of looking at this (our universe would appear not to be based on cellular automata), but that's a starter for a simple geneticist.

One interesting aspect of this is that the initial seed value for a mathematical universe can be arbitrarily big & scary. Perhaps there was no singularity or even inflation - the seed for our universe may be a Vast random number, reflecting the state at an *apparent* time of several thousand years "after" the Big Bang.

Worth thinking about.

5. Muslim countries win concession regarding religious debates

Comment #196445 by Shane McKee on June 20, 2008 at 1:31 am

Surely the response from the free world should then be to declare that any *objections* that these people have on the basis of "faith" or "religious issues" are thereby null and void, and not a damn bit of notice should be taken of them.

Rather than a veto, these should be treated as surrender of any right to comment. That'd soon sort 'em.

6. Is the Universe Actually Made of Math?

Comment #195981 by Shane McKee on June 19, 2008 at 6:31 am

Hmmm. A lot of anti-Max coming out here. Which I find odd, because I have to say I find the MUH to be very persuading indeed. It doesn't matter what we *call* it, or how we label it - philosophical nomenclature is so much twaddle. Part of the problem that I think some of us are having is in understanding what the word "exist" means.

*Our* universe "exists" only because we happen to be in it. If we were outside it (say, in another universe), this universe would just be a mathematical abstraction, like a sphere or a dodecahedron, and it would seem equally absurd if a Plato in such a universe were to propose that our one is "real".

For example, if we were a little glider-gun in a universe following the rules of COnway's Game of Life, our universe would appear entirely "real" to us, even though to humans outside the game, it's just so much mathematics.

If we simulate a human consciousness in a computer, and switch the computer off, what have we done? Killed the consciousness? Hardly. We could recover the contents of the computer's memory, and use the mathematical rules of the computer to figure out the next "state" of the memory, with a pen and paper if necessary, then plug it all into another computer, start 'er up, and the consciousness inside wouldn't be aware of any change at all - including the "time" when it existed purely on paper.

These are meaty issues; I think Max has hit the (teg)mark, and some day this will be as well accepted as Darwinian evolution is today.

So, screw you guys - Max is da man! (well, after Richard and Charles, of course) ;-)

7. Is the Universe Actually Made of Math?

Comment #195598 by Shane McKee on June 18, 2008 at 3:26 pm

Hmmm. It seems that there are a couple of camps emerging. Some, like Donald, think Max has lost the plot big time. Some, like me and Steve, think Max is right on the money (I thought his paper - the arxiv one - was a work of genius!).

Having said that, I still haven't forgiven him for not replying to my fan mail ;-)

8. Is the Universe Actually Made of Math?

Comment #195592 by Shane McKee on June 18, 2008 at 3:09 pm

Max has hit the nail on the head. If you're looking for a reason as to why anything exists at all, this is it. In fact, if anything, it's unavoidable. Brilliant brilliant stuff.

9. Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

Comment #190567 by Shane McKee on June 9, 2008 at 8:59 am

Good Lord. How can atheists maintain that an article like that comes from intelligent design, when it is self-evident that the author is an ignorant gibbering buffoon??

10. Flea of the week

Comment #163574 by Shane McKee on April 18, 2008 at 2:38 pm

Hang on folks, we're missing a trick here. We should be coming up with a list of all possible "Flea Titles" (like the "Names of God"), and then suing their sorry butts when they trespass on our prior art. Or maybe most of them are taken already.

Who wants to kick off?

[I'm reading Lennox's "God's Undertaker" at the moment. I'm seriously torn between giving it 5 stars on Amazon, or only 1. Mainly because it's probably the "best" Christian response, but because the "best" is so completely shit, it's virtually unfathomable how a supposedly intelligent person could write such nonsense. What a dilemma!]

11. Lords Approve Abolition Of Blasphemy

Comment #139820 by Shane McKee on March 6, 2008 at 2:25 pm

Indeed, Arabic is a lovely language. I learned a bit in Nazareth in Israel, where I worked in the Edinburgh Medical Missionary Society Hospital for a while. I went out a Christian, and came back an atheist :-)

My Arabic is pretty crap though, but Allahu mish akbar.

12. The real danger in Darwin is not evolution, but racism

Comment #115367 by Shane McKee on January 24, 2008 at 5:20 am

When I was a young Christian, I had a lot of time for Tony Campolo, and his videos were very widely shown at Christian youth groups, services, meetings etc. He is a very engaging speaker. I used to think he was great. I am now an atheist (like so many people who read their bible just that little bit too much).

That article above is pure crap. It demonstrates that Campolo has not the slightest clue about evolution, about Darwin's personal beliefs, about the cultural context of the 19th century, nor about the contents of "On the Origin of Species". After writing such tosh, he cannot have the slightest respect for truth or "Christian Integrity".

Christians are supposed to obey the 10 commandments. Number 9 is "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour". I don't know where in the bible it was made optional. The parable of the Good Samaritan demonstrates very clearly that "thy neighbour" is not necessarily someone with whom you share a doctrinal affinity, and moreover, your *duty* to your neighbour must be *secondary* to your religious proclivities or duties. How many Christians actually put that parable into practice? Not many.

The malignant hypocritical lying diatribe that Campolo has penned does much more than reveal his ignorance of science and history. It shows his contempt for truth. The truth shall set you free - perhaps that's what he's afraid of. So much for "nice Christians".

13. New Findings Confirm Darwin's Theory: Evolution Not Random

Comment #113443 by Shane McKee on January 19, 2008 at 3:12 pm

What this seems to be saying is that phenotypic traits themselves (or at least the ones studied) are rarely selectively neutral. It's a bit of a dumb-arse question - most of us are interested in how the "cool stuff" arose - complex adaptations. In these situations there is really no question - selection is how you get good adaptations. For things like eyes and wings etc, it's pretty clear that selection is operating, but it is perhaps less clear for things like height, eye colour, shoe size (in humans).

So it seems that when we see a change in some phenotypic variable within a subpopulation, we should cherchez la sélecteur, rather than just necessarily pinning it down to drift or founder effect. But a lot of this is predicated on what genetic factors are responsible for the *variability* in a trait in a population - this is not necessarily totally the same set of genetic factors that was involved in the trait being there in the first place. If you get my drift. Or selection.

14. A War On Science

Comment #105548 by Shane McKee on January 1, 2008 at 12:07 am

Vinelectric, irreducible complexity is not a barrier to evolution. The cdesign proponentsists would like you to think so, but it is not. It's a straight fallacy.

15. What We Believe: Atheism

Comment #104479 by Shane McKee on December 28, 2007 at 3:32 pm

Eric, yes, I simplified for the purpose of my point, but you will have noted how theists like to pretend that without the pixie life is meaningless. Why loving some deity (even a REAL one!) gives life meaning, yet loving one's kids doesn't is one for the pixie-huggers to address, rather than me... ;-)

16. What We Believe: Atheism

Comment #104434 by Shane McKee on December 28, 2007 at 1:31 pm

Hmmm. The bottom line is that we all seem to agree that it is *relationships* that give life its meaning. Theists pretend that the only (or most) meaningful relationship is with an imaginary sky-pixie, whereas it would seem that most atheists seem to value their relationships with other human beings and our beautiful world.

Now, which is the more attractive worldview, and which serves as a surer foundation for moral behaviour?

17. Archbishop of Canterbury Praises Richard Dawkins

Comment #104426 by Shane McKee on December 28, 2007 at 1:20 pm

"Preaching on the importance of Christian compassion towards the less fortunate, [Cormac Murphy-O'Connor] said: "I understand that immigration needs to be controlled. However, sometimes [migrants] must feel like Joseph when he returned to Bethlehem after exile in Egypt, simply excluded because they are outsiders."

18. New journal to target education in evolution

Comment #103846 by Shane McKee on December 27, 2007 at 4:05 am

It's bananas. Macroevolution is just microevolution that has been going on for a bit longer. For sure, we get these "punctuated equilibria" (which are not as "punctuated" as some people like to make out), but these are just artefacts of the dynamics of evolution. It's like snow falling on a mountain - much of the time it doesn't just slide off gently - it'll fall off in avalanches. The creationist would probably therefore conclude that snow falls in discrete multi-million ton packages, rather than many many individual teensy wee snowflakes one after another.

As for adaptation, most of the gradations that we see in the fossil record are not actually adaptations per se - they are more likely to represent "drift". Why? Because evolution is *bloody fast* if there is a major selective pressure. Fast, of course, means in a geological sense. A couple of hundred generations can do great stuff if it's adaptation you're looking for.

Which means, of course, that our doctors need to know *a lot* about evolution, because a new strain of pandemic flu is hardly going to wait around until several million years has passed since 1918.

19. New journal to target education in evolution

Comment #103813 by Shane McKee on December 26, 2007 at 11:56 pm

Folks, believe it. I teach medical students (I'm a cclinical geneticist), and it astonishes me how many of them are creationists. I also got excoriated in the letters columns in one of our local newspapers by a GP who thought that a council should write to local secondary schools to suggest they reach creationism as science.
There is a lot of work to be done.

20. Man and God

Comment #103397 by Shane McKee on December 25, 2007 at 12:24 pm

Paula, I'm another former evangelical Christian. I agree with you in that I think there are a lot of us who actually know our former religion (and its experiences of "spirituality") very well indeed. From that perspective, I can tell you that RD's criticisms of Christianity in particular are spot on target. The excuses we get in return are simply rubbish defence mechanisms, not arguments per se. But it is drivel like this that religion is built upon, and is the core of that load of cobblers that gets called Christian Apologetics.

21. Disquiet over schools' moment of silence

Comment #103239 by Shane McKee on December 24, 2007 at 3:37 pm

Dinah,
That's pretty much my point. The religionists seem to feel that atheists are somehow reactionarily "against god" because of some oul' shite that has happened in their lives - they do not have the concept that many (if not most) atheists are atheists because they simply do not believe religion (in whatever form) to be *true*. [In fact, even if there were a god, religion would almost by logical necessity be a heresy, but that's another debate.]

But I don't think secular people or atheists are really that much different from anyone else, and personally I do find (I hope I'm not doing a Sam Harris here!) that a bit of quiet reflection is No Bad Thing. I don't think it needs to be satirised (although the prayers to the "dieu du semaine" or whatever are a funny take on this), but given that we know that gods are simply made up mental constructs, it doesn't do any harm for us to be alone for a few mins with our own thoughts.

In fact, as I said above, by *embracing* something like this, and not hiding why we as atheists feel that this is positive *for atheists*, I can guarantee that theists will want to drop it like a hot potato.

That being said, I appreciate the "thin end of the wedge" concept, but rather than approaching this from the position of the victim, should atheists not be approaching it from a position of strength? We've got right and reason on our side; religion is just cobblers. Turning this into a 1st amendment thing risks diluting (for example) the spectacularly brilliant outcome of the Kitzmiller case. I appreciate that folks will disagree with some of my points here :-)

22. Disquiet over schools' moment of silence

Comment #103173 by Shane McKee on December 24, 2007 at 11:45 am

I'm with FightingFalcon in this. This is not the right battle (but then I'm not American). What would send out a powerful message is if atheists *welcome* this, and put out a strong positive message about how this allows secular students to think about what they have learned, and to think of ways to be nice to their fellow students and others. Even call it a "moment of secular reflection". See how fast the religionists move then!

Seriously, it worked for Christianity - hijack everyone else's traditions. There is not reason why atheists should not do likewise. For one thing, it would "heap coals of fire upon their heads".

Enough with the victim mentality. It's time to be empowered.

23. The Pagan Christ

Comment #102179 by Shane McKee on December 22, 2007 at 12:33 am

Radesq, you should get a bible - the atheist's best ammo! I prefer Revised Standard Version, but keep a King James too. Avoid "Happy Clappy" ones like "The Good News".

Remember that the bible is not one book, but many. There is the full spectrum of Iliad-to-Constitution there. Much, of course, is fiction, and there is no science worth mentioning.

24. The Pagan Christ

Comment #102132 by Shane McKee on December 21, 2007 at 4:34 pm

Hi Radesq,
Christians (theistic ones ;-) often protest that we should treat the bible the same as any historical document. I think that's fair. So we should highlight falsehoods, contradictions, propaganda etc the same as for any text.

25. The Pagan Christ

Comment #102127 by Shane McKee on December 21, 2007 at 4:02 pm

nogodsever, fair point re the "canonisation" of the 4 main gospels. I was premature to bring Nicea into this, nevertheless, the point remains that these gospels were each the core "gospel" document of a particular strand of Christianity that ended up being unified centuries after Jesus was dead.

Radesq:

Are you saying that despite the fact there was an historical Jesus, the Jesus of the Bible is fictional?

26. The Pagan Christ

Comment #102063 by Shane McKee on December 21, 2007 at 1:52 pm

It is highly likely that Jesus existed - it's just that he wasn't very important in his lifetime. There were messiahs popping up all over the gaffe back then; some got crucified, some escaped. It was same old same old for Pilate and the boys.

The gospels do have some very good historical evidence in them for a real Jesus, but unfortunately for Christians it portrays a very credible yet bog standard Galilean Hasid. The resurrection is the key issue, and the evidence of the gospels again points pretty conclusively (in my view) to members of Jesus's family taking his body back to Galilee for burial early on Sunday morning, in order to avoid those disciple assholes, with whom the family had fallen out.

*Christianity* as we know it crystallised around that disaffected and confused Hellenised Jewish bigot, Saul of Tarsus and his clique, some decades later. The individual gospels were not just isolated tracts, but the principal documents of various divergent Jewish Christian sects that later came together, and absorbed lots of Egyptian and Hellenistic elements. These 4 gospels got included at the Council of Nicea only because each of these 4 groups had a strong lobby, and insisted that *their* version must go in the definitive "Bible" - including all 4 was the compromise that was worked out. Smaller groups had their own gospels too, but they were ditched simply because they were small.

So, bottom line, I feel is that there almost certainly was a Jesus of Nazareth, and he almost certainly made no big splash during his lifetime. But since that's more or less as far as we can take it, what's to argue about?

A historical Jesus is not a threat to atheism - quite the reverse - he is a threat to Christianity.

27. God rest you merry atheist

Comment #100913 by Shane McKee on December 19, 2007 at 3:22 pm

Great that we've got a bit of biodiversity here :-) Wednesdayguevara is right - the nutters will twist things regardless of what you do, and as far as those arses are concerned, you might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb. However, bear in mind that the battle is not with *people* (who are all pretty similar under the skin or in the DNA) but with the *memes*. Some folks respond to getting their memes clobbered over the head, but for others it just makes them become more and more intransigent.

We're a diverse bunch, and that is appropriate. The fundies have fostered this myth that atheists are unfriendly unpleasant sorts who want to kill Santa and all that. We're not. We just want Reason. We want people to feel liberated by knowledge and science. We want to defeat bad ideas. That battle is being won to an extent (well, I was one "casualty", and I'm darned pleased about it now!), and atheism is now being seen as "respectable" instead of just "reactionary" (which was always a false caricature).

Progress is being made, but some of us don't want to tear down the churches, as much as open the minds of those within.

So I can sing "Away in a Manger" to my kids with a clear conscience - I know precisely where and why it is cobblers, and when my kids are old enough, I'll share my views with them. Similarly for my Christian friends - if they want to talk to me about it, I'm available. If they try to *convert* me, then they've asked for it - it's gloves off time.

28. Dawkins: I'm a cultural Christian

Comment #100357 by Shane McKee on December 18, 2007 at 2:18 pm

Just speaking personally here, but as I've mentioned on the Libby Purves thread, if I hadn't once been a committed Christian, I probably would not now be an atheist. I don't feel any regrets for the particular path I followed, and I know several others who have come this way also. I still have a lot of Christian friends and family. [Having said that, I recognise now that a lot of people I formerly respected are narrow-minded pathetic bigots and fools, but many are genuinely nice people.] I sang "And Can It Be" with gusto at my Grandfather's funeral, knowing full well it was bollocks, but rousing bollocks nonetheless.

I'm human. I make no apologies for that. But I'm a hard-assed rationalist to the core. So I'll sing as if I believed, but I am always happy to help Christians understand their bibles better. It's a great way to help them realise that it's a pile of pants.

29. God rest you merry atheist

Comment #100332 by Shane McKee on December 18, 2007 at 1:57 pm

Bah Humbug, you guys! I thought Libby Purves' article was quite endearing and amusing, and it's pretty obvious that there is nothing there that lands a punch on atheism or RD in particular. it's a gentle tease, and when you're right you can take that in the spirit it was intended.

In a lot of ways I agree with the "Cultural Christian" tag - I occasionally describe myself as a "Christian atheist". Of course this involves being very picky in terms of what bits of "christianity" to keep, and what bits to ditch, but hey, Christians do that too. It's not as if the Bible is ALL true or ALL false.

The nativity is a pleasant little fairy tale (with some unpleasant bits of course), but we humans like the notion of the poorest becoming the most exalted; the powerful being the vulnerable; the triumph of hope over adversity and all that stuff. The nativity story actually owes remarkably little to the original yarns in Matthew and Luke (no stable; no innkeeper; no angels present at the birth - there's more), but it definitely has something. And "Away in a Manger", though it's simplistic nonsense, is a charming wee lullaby.

I appreciate I am speaking for a minority here, but I can honestly say that if I had not once been a very committed Christian - if I had been a lukewarm "sort-of" believer - I would not now be a very happy atheist. I learned to value truth and reason. In that somewhat ironic sense, Jesus was my saviour! (This clicks a bit with RD's "Atheists for Jesus" article a while back).

This won't work for everyone, and I know many people who would be sticking their fingers down their throat at this point. However, this is how it's been for me, and I have seen a lot of people make the transition this way too. It can take a bit of time, but by "god" it's worth it.

But to feck with all that - what is Christmas really about? Peace and goodwill to all (not just men!). Love. Family. Hope. Wonder. You don't need a giant sky pixie for that.

Happy Christmas, folks!

30. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #99012 by Shane McKee on December 15, 2007 at 7:46 am

While we're all on about not judging Newton outside the context of his time, let's not judge Jesus of Nazareth outside his context. In "Jesus the Jew", Geza Vermes shows how Jesus fitted perfectly into a well-attested model of the Galilean Hasid, an itinerant Jewish preacher, like many before and since.

He clearly was NOT the Messiah, but towards the end he probably was a Very Naughty Boy - starting a riot in the temple, and consciously emulating the classic (and hackneyed) Triumphal Entry. Pilate probably thought "Oh bollocks - here's another one." And he wasn't to be the last.

But as RD points out, it took the disaffected Hellenised Jewish wannabe extremist Saul of Tarsus to really take these disparate themes and make up the mother of all cock-and-bull theologies. Jesus himself was a much more straightforward character.

The genealogies are interesting - Matt & Luke are different, but they converge then diverge at Zerrubabel son of Shealtiel. If you remember Isaiah, this chap was the original Messiah - except he failed to perform. The bible is full of such crazy cobblers. One wonders what other treats are in there that we just don't have the reference points for...

31. Row Brews Over DUP Call for Schools to Teach Creationism

Comment #90876 by Shane McKee on November 26, 2007 at 2:40 pm

Good news. School principals in Lisburn have told the creationists on the City Council to go and get stuffed - *including* those schools with a "christian ethos":

http://www.lisburntoday.co.uk/news/SCHOOLS-REJECT-LISBURN-COUNCIL-CALL.3517793.jp

Dr Quinn [Principal of St Patrick's High School], stressing that he was not attacking any denomination in Northern Ireland, continued: "St Patrick's is not and will not be teaching in our science classes the religious dogma of certain fundamentalist Christian Sects from America who are promoting their own agenda.

"Lisburn wants to be known as a centre of educational excellence and not a medieval and inward looking town," he concluded.

32. Bankrolling Ali's Asylum

Comment #90845 by Shane McKee on November 26, 2007 at 1:48 pm

In fairness, folks, I think Sam was joking, and there is a certain layer of irony there.

Having said that, I am sure Ayaan Hirsi Ali probably gets bombarded with Christian evangelism - think about how high her stock rating would be to the Jesus camp if she converted! So it's very much in Rick Warren's interests to ensure her safety (he said cynically).

Sam may come out with some crazy stuff from time to time, but as long as it keeps folks thinking and on their toes, that's a good thing, surely? It's not as if the theists actually have any *arguments* or anything...

33. Tony Blair: Mention God and you're a 'nutter'

Comment #90378 by Shane McKee on November 25, 2007 at 12:11 am

Indeed. When will people learn that "faith" is a purely narcissistic *vice*, rather than a virtue?

Is Tony really that much different from George, whose pixie instructed him to invade Iraq? Sam is right. Faith is a *bad* thing.

34. On Being Not Muslim Enough

Comment #86669 by Shane McKee on November 9, 2007 at 11:48 pm

Folks, go easy on her - it sounds like she's in transition; a lot of us have Been There, and it can take some time (and can be disconcerting). I can identify with a lot of this when I was moving beyond Christianity.

Of course, the solution to being Not Muslim Enough is to be Not Muslim At All. Ayaan Hirsi Ali had the courage to realise this.

One thing we should actively try to do is *ease* the transition...

35. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #80369 by Shane McKee on October 21, 2007 at 1:33 pm

I suggest part of the problem is precisely that we have learned to tolerate all sorts of rampant buffoonery in our society - we reap the benefits of a scientific and medical enlightenment, yet dare not confront the woo, superstition and outright garbage that is creationism, "alternative medicine", UFOlogy, Atlantis-lore, etc. And, yes, religion is part of that, whether it be Christianity or Islam or whatever. Ayaan Hirsi Ali is correct when she notes that our tolerance of wacko opinion is interpreted as weakness, and it encourages the wackos further. Tolerance has, it would seem, come to mean protection from contrary argument, and *that* is completely counter to the principles of the enlightenment. People can say what they like, but they need to prepare to face the counter-argument.

36. I am creating artificial life, declares US gene pioneer

Comment #76480 by Shane McKee on October 6, 2007 at 1:22 am

Intelligent Design is the hard way; evolution is the easy way. This is not new science, but could prove useful some day.

37. The Bible's literary sins

Comment #63215 by Shane McKee on August 13, 2007 at 2:18 pm

I actually rather enjoy the bible, but I confess that's more because of familiarity and as a source of reminiscence. As a Christian, I must have read it cover to cover about 6 times, and many other smaller bits many many times.

That's probably the main reason I became an atheist.

Encourage Christians to *read* their bibles. 1 Samuel 15 is a goodie. Get them to read the resurrection stories in all four gospels in one sitting. Then again each evening for a fortnight. Raw therapy :-)

38. 'I have never been happier' says the man who won gold but lost God

Comment #53373 by Shane McKee on July 1, 2007 at 5:18 am

This is great news, and it rings so true. It's very brave of Jonathan to bring it out so publicly, and he's sure to get a lot of patronising rubbish from Christians about "backsliding" or "losing faith". I've argued many times that atheism can be post-Christian phenomenon, and I wish him all the very best. It's not easy, but this *is* the "Good Fight".

39. Sociable Darwinism

Comment #30554 by Shane McKee on April 8, 2007 at 3:21 pm

Dunno, folks - "Selfish Gene" type selection on a background of random variation is really the only way that information gets written into genepools. Higher level selection (e.g. at the level of the group) just changes the ecology, not the genetics directly. I think the HGP (and the other genome projects) backs that view up to a T.

Steve Gould's old line about re-running the tape of life, and not ending up with humans is often pressed in to support a group-selectionist view, but it's not really that appropriate - it's just a comment on the contingency of evolution, and a rebuttal of the notion that *we* (i.e. humans) are inevitable. All acceptable (obvious, even) under TSG modelling.

What I think *is* interesting, though, is the effect that this "group ecology" has on selection within the group or between related groups, combined with the developmental constraints that our evo-devo pals are serving up for us these days. When spandrels become adaptations... what seems to be the case is that biology is so flexible that natural selection makes no distinction between spandrels and previous adaptations - Phenotype is Everything (plus a bit of luck ;-)

40. Debate between Alister McGrath and Peter Atkins

Comment #28973 by Shane McKee on April 1, 2007 at 1:31 am

Yes indeed, NMcC, Our Wee Country does seem to have exported above its fair share of pixie huggers. Actually, I wonder if Alister actually has a bit of a CS Lewis wannabe thing going on... it would make a lot of sense. I take your point re CSL - he was definitely overrated (some theists I have run across think he was some sort of unanswerable master-intellect, which he clearly wasn't). But "Belfast boy follows in the footsteps of Lewis" does have a certain home-charm ring to it, no? I wonder when/if he'll make a Second Coming back to us in the benighted Praavince to save us from godlessness?

You just end up wishing that he'd pick his game up a bit.

PS. I think I was wrong - the virgin mary *was* in the Dawkins debate...

41. Debate between Alister McGrath and Peter Atkins

Comment #28910 by Shane McKee on March 31, 2007 at 3:00 pm

Dawkins may have asked Al about this; I'm not sure. However, Atkins did it too - to much the same effect. Yep, virgin birth, rising from the dead, casting out "demons" (how the feck *they* fit into our current understanding of epilepsy and mental illness is another question) and all that were pretty much de rigeur for your CVif you were applying for a god/demigod post back then. It helped to be related to the Big Guy - nepotism, I guess.

Equal opportunities has ironed most of these out by now.

I honestly think McGrath has not remotely considered the Bigger Picture, and like so many (very clever) Christian intellectuals, has spent his brain energy on erecting the most elaborate personal defences against rationality. What a waste of talent! Like CS Lewis - smart chap, stupid ideas.

42. Debate between Alister McGrath and Peter Atkins

Comment #28901 by Shane McKee on March 31, 2007 at 2:23 pm

NMcC, agreed 100%, except I think that was in the debate with Atkins (the virgin birth thing). Atkins (rather brilliantly in my opinion ;-) said something along the lines of: "Ah, so you're saying that the bible trumps science?"

McGrath had no answer. But he's partially right - the virgin birth does point to something. It is just another indicator that the whole shebang is poppycock. There are many many more...

[What I'm getting at here is that there is no *reason* for any god with half a brain, never mind being omniscient, to choose such a silly framework as Christianity as his Plan A for saving mankind - the "miracles and wonders" make Christianity *less* plausible, not more. Add to that the fact that some "miracles" were not even miracles - the "curing" of the epileptic boy, the "raising" of Jairus's daughter - all just everyday events. Even resurrection was a bad move - resurrections were two a penny back then. Herod even thought that *Jesus* was John the Baptist resurrected; everyone else thought he was one of the prophets. Credulous times. McGrath is just adding his own name to Herod's on the Gullible List].

43. Debate between Alister McGrath and Peter Atkins

Comment #28890 by Shane McKee on March 31, 2007 at 1:44 pm

In fairness to Alister McGrath, he would have had *just* enough time to become a Christian after starting his primary BSc (if I'm reading the chronology right here), but only just. It is telling that one of the first things he did when starting Oxford was to join the Christian Union. This does not strike me as a very atheist thing to do; I wonder who influenced him in this, or whether he was indeed just a closet Christian throwing a strop with god?

I have to say, I don't have a major problem with the fella as a person; he seems reasonably nice and he probably thinks he's well-intentioned. But he has no argument; just sentiment. One area that is at least *interesting* is the origin of morality, but he (and any theist) has yet to come up with how that arises or is valid under a theistic model. A bit of careful explanation needed, Alister, me boy!

44. Debate between Alister McGrath and Peter Atkins

Comment #28869 by Shane McKee on March 31, 2007 at 12:06 pm

NMcC,

Ask, and it shall be given unto you; google and ye shall find ;-)

http://www.amazon.com/Christian-Catalyst-VIPS-Collection-Alister/dp/B000F6ZETQ
"Alister E. McGrath was born in Belfast, Northern Ireland, in 1953. He was raised a Christian, but by age thirteen hated Christianity and embraced Marxism. He joined the Oxford Inter-Collegiate Christian Union, and as a result became a Christian at the age of eighteen. He found that Christianity "really gives shape, direction and purpose to the rest of your life," and that "Christianity has enormous depth."

So, at age 13, it would have been 1966; age 18 at 1971.

http://www.theopedia.com/Alister_McGrath

Originally a student of science, in 1977 McGrath was awarded a PhD in Biochemistry from Oxford University. Following his conversion from atheism to Christianity, he studied divinity at St. John's College at Cambridge (1978-80).

So it's a bit misleading. He had been a Christian for at least 6 years before his PhD. 1977 is a long time ago in the Life Sciences (ask RD - The Selfish Gene was written in the same era ;-) and I would contend that 18 is a very tender age for one to have properly assessed the merits of atheism.

45. Atheists for Jesus

Comment #28807 by Shane McKee on March 31, 2007 at 3:12 am

Oh dear - the old fake trichotomy again - mad/bad/god. A couple of comments on this: firstly, it is extraordinarily insulting to anyone who has had mental illness, and is just a reinforcement of old Victorian stereotypes of the "insane". CS Lewis (for it was he) should have been ashamed of himself for coming up with it.

Secondly, it completely ignores the possibility that Jesus may have felt he was being called upon to do god's work in what he said, just like the zillions of religious people that inhabit our planet. I think it's safer to use the term delusion, like RD does.

Thirdly, there is the issue of Jesus being misreported. The Gospels are riddled with contradictions and non-sequiturs, yet one thing Jesus very explicitly did *not* do was go around proclaiming himself to be the messiah - other people tended to do that on his behalf (most notoriously Saul of Tarsus, the syncretist fanatic.

Fourthly, even if Jesus *did* claim to be "The Son Of God", it is not entirely clear (in fact it is extraordinarily unlikely, nay impossible) that he would have believed it to mean that he was "divine" - in fact, in several reported passages, he explicitly *denies* it. So *even if* he was the Jewish Messiah, there is no reason to make the daft leap into thinking that he was claiming divinity. And Messiahs (even resurrected ones) were two a penny back then. It's not Jesus' fault that his subsequent "followers" distorted not only his message and ethic, but his very person.

Jesus was Jewish, following in the tradition of the Galilean Hasid (read "Jesus the Jew" by Geza Vermes for further enlightenment on this). He was not the first to come up with his ideas, but they did seem to strike a chord. In fact, if anything (according to the bible) Jesus took the blasphemy challenge, and with the parable of the Good Samaritan made it very clear that *religion* is entirely unimportant; it is our ethic towards our fellow man/woman that is important.

Jesus needs rescued from Christians; whether that should be by Jews or atheists is an open question. To say that he was "a good person" is more than adequate.

Personally, I think that if Jesus had been around today, he would have been an atheist.

46. In the Beginning

Comment #28739 by Shane McKee on March 30, 2007 at 2:51 pm

[Minor excursus - apologies for it not being related to the original item].
Re: 1. Comment #28681 by NeoGothic

The bible was not written 4000-5000 years ago! Nor were the writers nomadic. Read "The Unauthorised Version" by Robin Lane Fox (as you are instructed to do in TGD ;-) for the low-down (VERY good book). The Old Testament was largely composed in 700-600BCE and thereafter, when the Assyrians and subsequent empires were kicking the kingdom of Judah around. If that's not good enough for you, read Donald Redford's "Egypt, Canaan and Israel in Ancient Times" for some corking anachronisms and revealing factors in the Pentateuch/Torah that locate it very firmly in C7BCE (and shed some light on ancient near eastern history too).

In any event, it patently ain't the word of god. The Pi thing is a distraction - there are far better reasons for believing the Bible to be the work of humans. Most Christians don't know their bible very well; when I was a Christian I read and studied it in very great detail, cross-checking all the references and correspondences, and checking the dependability of the various commentaries. *That* was why I became an atheist.

47. Stephen Hawking Says Universe Created from Nothing

Comment #28736 by Shane McKee on March 30, 2007 at 2:36 pm

I think Hawking's speech is pretty much similar to what he was saying in a Brief History of Time (all those years ago), and so far so good. But he doesn't go far enough.

If we play with the "universe as a mathematical abstraction" idea, then we can recognise that from the point of view of a glider zipping along the board in Conway's Game of Life is an inhabitant of *its* universe, which it will perceive as "real", and *we* will be the mathematical abstractions. Quantum mechanics/General relativity apply to *our* universe, but they need not apply to all (such as any of the Life universes).

People get *so* stressed out about this word "exist", as if there is something final and objective about it. We need to get over that. The universe only "exists" if you happen to be inside it; otherwise, it's just a complicated iterative equation. State and Operator. No computer required; no pixie required. [and pixies fall foul of the Ultimate 747 Gambit anyway]

The job of physics will be to find out the initial State and the Operator. It may take a while (good grief, that sounds optimistic!) In the meantime, even if this is currently unprovable, it consigns the First Cause argument firmly to the trash can.

But even if we had no answer to the First Cause Argument, why plug the gap with a pixie?? What a cop-out!

48. Stephen Hawking Says Universe Created from Nothing

Comment #28580 by Shane McKee on March 30, 2007 at 1:07 am

I agree re Penrose. Very smart dude, but all that quantum microtubule stuff is just silly. We "compute the incomputable" because we have zillions of neurons, massively interconnected. Quite how it all works and hangs together is not entirely clear, but we do know some of the details and general principles, which give us every reason to suppose that we are *not* dealing with the quantum here. Invoking microtubules (at this stage anyway) is like invoking the GOP (Great Omnipotent Pixie) to explain the universe - totally redundant.

49. Debate between Alister McGrath and Peter Atkins

Comment #28521 by Shane McKee on March 29, 2007 at 2:41 pm

I'm sure someone has mentioned this before, but Alister McGrath became a Christian at age 18, having been an "atheist" from age 13. So, rather than having been a *proper* atheist(!), all this chap has been is a mildly rebellious teenager.

Maybe he should style himself as a "former teenager" instead of "former atheist".

It's like taking a puff of one cigarette, and calling yourself a "former smoker" for the rest of your life. Pur-lease!! There is a difference between being a bit pissed off at a god you actually really do believe in, and not believing in it at all.

I'm just glad that he's lost his accent, and you can't tell he's from Northern Ireland any more.

50. Stephen Hawking Says Universe Created from Nothing

Comment #28517 by Shane McKee on March 29, 2007 at 2:28 pm

Yep, bring it on ;-)

(Indeed, apologies for the length of that last one - no, I'm talking about the *post*, not philandering).

I'm a whole-cubes man for my J&C.

Anyway, the next time some theist comes up to you and says that "everything that has a beginning has a cause", just point 'em in the direction of the Fibonacci sequence and the nearest pub...