1. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Madeline Bunting

Comment #127074 by Peter Hearty on February 14, 2008 at 10:57 pm

I find some of Bunting's evasiveness quite astonishing. It's not that long ago that, if you asked a Catholic, was Jesus born to a virgin, the answer would be an emphatic "yes". And if you die in a state of mortal sin do you go to hell for all eternity, the answer would also have been "yes". It's certainly what I was taught as a child. I'm sure if you cornered any Catholic bishop today and pressed them on the point they would ultimately be forced to answer yes to these very simple questions.

The Catholic church is not for people who are on a personal spiritual journey. It's for people who can't be bothered with that journey and want simple, uncomplicated answers. "Is it wrong to use a condom in any circumstances. Yes - the pope has spoken, end of story."

If this is the view of god taken by most Catholics these days then it is a church that has transformed itself unrecognisably since I was training to be a priest. I preferred the old version - it was so obviously absurd that it was easy to see it was a load of rubbish.

2. Why (Almost All) Cosmologists are Atheists

Comment #110692 by Peter Hearty on January 12, 2008 at 1:34 am

"this meant that god was pulling it apart for some reason"

Maybe he's finally got fed up and has decided to tear the universe up and start again.

3. Why (Almost All) Cosmologists are Atheists

Comment #110662 by Peter Hearty on January 11, 2008 at 8:52 pm

Here's what I think Sean Carroll is saying (and I'm by no means certain about this, it's a long time since I did undergraduate physics).

He is, of course, well aware of the second law of thermodynamics, the randomness built into QM and the unpredictability of chaotic systems. In the paragraph where he states:

"If we know the state of a system at one time, and the laws governing its dynamics, we can calculate the state of the system at some later time."

he's talking about whether causality is a fundamental feature of our universe or not and is pointing out that it is not.

To give a specific example: an electron emitting a photon. Because of the particular way the events are ordered in time we can think of the electron "causing" the photon to appear, but from the point of view of physics, we can equally well run time backwards and cause the electron to absorb the photon. Both views of the same physical event are equally consistent with our understanding of physical laws, or as Carroll puts it, the patterns and boundary conditions that describe our universe. In fact, in Feynman diagrams, a positron is often depicted as an electron travelling backwards in time (it just means that replacing t with -t in the wave equation for an electron turns it into the wave equation of a positron).

On a larger scale, a universe with positive time and increasing entropy, is exactly the same as a universe with negative time and decreasing entropy. I don't think Carroll is saying that thermodynamic processes are necessarily reversible, only that these two worldviews are equivalent.

Does that make sense?

I liked his dismissal of the fine tuning argument. The idea that, given our current state of knowledge about our own universe, we would probably predict "nothing interesting here" because of the matter anti-matter balance, is a very good one.

4. The Group Delusion

Comment #110640 by Peter Hearty on January 11, 2008 at 5:59 pm

"P.S. Sorry for making this message so long but I'm not a talented enough word-smith to make how strongly I feel let down by school on this extremely important topic, known succinctly."

You're an excellent word-smith eddington and I hope Richard Dawkins seriously considers writing a book for school children.

5. Can we really learn to love people who aren't like us?

Comment #48996 by Peter Hearty on June 10, 2007 at 12:33 am

gcdavis wrote

If you are still online RD, maybe you could add you weight to the campaign waged over many years for an atheist contributor to (BBC)Thought for the Day to which Sacks is a regular contributor. I have made numerous complaints to the Beeb but they wont budge - yet!

6. 4 Sermon for Matins: 'Dawkins and The God Delusion'

Comment #36655 by Peter Hearty on May 2, 2007 at 12:44 am

"Being a Christian for me is much more like being a character in The Complete Works of Shakespeare"


A Comedy of Errors, perhaps?

7. Growing Up in the Universe: 2-Disc DVD Set

Comment #30365 by Peter Hearty on April 7, 2007 at 9:16 pm

> These may have been "Children's" Lectures when
> they were produced but they were made at a time
> when the RI Xmas Lectures were not dumbed down
> at all and were often quite challenging to adults.

You can say that again. One that I've always wanted to get my hands on was Christopher Zeeman's lecture where he proved the Fundamental Theorem of Algebra (that all polynomials have complex roots) using a pinboard and some bits of string. Stunning stuff.

Richard Dawkins' RI lectures are easily in the same class. I'm immensely looking forward to seeing them again.

8. Believing Scripture but Playing by Science's Rules

Comment #22084 by Peter Hearty on February 12, 2007 at 10:18 pm

I agree with nine9s, this raises serious ethical issues. Unfortunately, I'm in no position to throw stones. I vividly remember writing in an English exam about Othello being a tragic hero, when I really thought he was a gullible fool. Essentially, I lied to get the marks and provided the textbook answer.

What Dr. Ross has done is the same thing, except on a massive scale. He has provided textbook answers throughout his undergraduate and masters degrees, and has even defended original research for his Ph.D.

Can we really say that he lied though? What of physicists who work on general relativity and quantum mechanics. We know that they can't both be completely correct, yet we apply both in their respective areas and generally ignore their inconsistencies. Isn't Dr. Ross doing something similar?

The most serious issue though is his using his academic credentials to lend authority to his creationist beliefs. This does seem blatantly dishonest to me. His academic credentials were gained by defending one "paradigm", as he puts it, they cannot be used to support another.

9. My critics are wrong to call me dogmatic

Comment #21931 by Peter Hearty on February 11, 2007 at 11:23 pm

"I don't know" must be the most underused phrase in the English language. I often wish people would use it more. In particular, I wish those with strong religious convictions would recognise what a strength it is to admit the limits of our current understanding.

10. Evolution Sunday

Comment #21928 by Peter Hearty on February 11, 2007 at 11:15 pm

>>Instead, I'm going to encourage you all to participate in my Enlightenment Sunday project. Skip church every week. Ignore the pleas of your priests. <<

Telling people to abandon all of their beliefs so that they can accept evolution is precisely the wrong thing to do, and will be totally counter productive. I welcome this Christian movement. The more we can reduce the influence of creationists, and biblcial literalists, the better.

11. Does Richard Dawkins exist?

Comment #21339 by Peter Hearty on February 8, 2007 at 8:38 pm

"To all the Brits out there; who is the other voice supposed to me? I recognize it as a mimick of someone, but I can't quite place it and it's driving me nuts!"

It sounds like the former leader of the Conservative party, William Hague, currently shadow Foreign Secretary.

12. Does Richard Dawkins exist?

Comment #21338 by Peter Hearty on February 8, 2007 at 8:33 pm

I think this is tremendously encouraging. In common with every single attack that I've seen so far on TGD, it focuses on caricature of the author, rather than responding to the arguments. Which only goes to prove that believers simply don't have any arguments left to offer.

Seen in that light, it was very funny indeed.

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

Comment #21172 by Peter Hearty on February 7, 2007 at 9:10 pm

"His salvo of outrage and ridicule ..."

Yawn.

Another self-indulgent ad-hominem attack on Richard Dawkins. Not a single fact or argument in the whole piece. Is this what they call theology?

14. Blashpemy Challenge Interview

Comment #20029 by Peter Hearty on January 31, 2007 at 5:46 am

I deny the existence of the father, son and holy ghost, and for good measure YWYH, Allah, the heavenly copy of the koran, wotan, thor, zeus, jupiter, isis, ra...the easter bunny, the tooth fairy and the flying spaghetti monster.

15. Beliefwatch: Blasphemy (Challenge)

Comment #15671 by Peter Hearty on January 1, 2007 at 11:58 pm

The "unforgivable sin" passage can be used in arguments with religious people. The misogynistic, homophobic, authoritarian aspects of Christianity are often based on a selective approach to reading the bible. We've all seen how some Christians quote particular passages of Leviticus for example, while ignoring the hundreds of other proscriptions in that same book.

This reflects a tendency for the relgious to justify their own prejudices by blaming them on their God (the "I don't have any problem with homosexuals, but God says it's wrong" attitude).

I've suggested to several Christians who profess this type of belief that they had better be pretty certain they are right. For if they really are blaming their God for their own intolerance then this could well be what the passage in Mark is referring to when he talks about blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.

The almost universally hostile reaction that this provokes suggests that it touches a nerve.

16. William Crawley, BBC Belfast, names Richard Dawkins as Person of the Year 2006

Comment #15558 by Peter Hearty on January 1, 2007 at 9:32 am

Congratulations Prof. Dawkins - let's hope we continue to see more and more common sense, and less and less religion in 2007.

Happy New Year!

17. How Old is the Grand Canyon? Park Service Won't Say

Comment #15409 by Peter Hearty on December 31, 2006 at 3:41 am

> No doubt, you have seen this:
> Warning: Gravity is "Only a Theory" Ellery Schempp
> http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p67.htm

I hadn't actually - thanks for the link. Of course, it had to be followed by it's more intelligent counterpart:

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512

18. How Old is the Grand Canyon? Park Service Won't Say

Comment #15401 by Peter Hearty on December 31, 2006 at 2:08 am

> Peter, there was quite an intense discussion
> revolving around comology/astrophysics ...
> moving along on the "Defending Andy McIntosh"
> forum at that BBC

Thanks Nikki. "Orthodox Agnostic" certainly sounded like he knew his stuff. I felt sorry for him/her trying to explain to people why the 2nd LOT was no problem for evolution.

19. How Old is the Grand Canyon? Park Service Won't Say

Comment #15387 by Peter Hearty on December 30, 2006 at 9:39 pm

> Geology now - who's next?
> Physics or mathematics, or?

They've already had a go at cosmology. See for example:

http://www.amazon.com/Starlight-Time-Solving-Distant-Universe/dp/0890512027

Russell Humphries claims to have found a solution to Einstein's field equations compatible with a young universe that is only a few thousand years old.

You will find others who take comfort in alleged variations in nuclear decay rates, alleged variations in the the speed of light, or who believe that stars are powered by gravitational collapse, rather than nuclear fusion in order to make their energy output compatible with a young earth.

I've done my own spoof on what they might do to mathematics:

http://www.hearty.plus.com/bumblism/maths.html

20. Woman beaten on Jerusalem bus for refusing to move to rear seat

Comment #15103 by Peter Hearty on December 28, 2006 at 11:43 pm

> Peter Hearty, can you tell us more about that? I am interested.

Do a google for "buddhists fundamentalists" - the link to the evangelical atheist blog is quite shocking if true. Basically, at least one strain of Sri Lankan Buddhism seems to have become overtly chauvanistic and nationalistic. This seems to be happening as a reaction to the Tamil separatist movement.

It's also worth noting the comments by one blogger on the Dalai Lama's Tibet. Again, I have no idea how truthful some of these perceptions are. Like you, I would like to know more.

21. Woman beaten on Jerusalem bus for refusing to move to rear seat

Comment #15090 by Peter Hearty on December 28, 2006 at 9:55 pm

It just goes to show that fanatics of any type can be dangerous. I was on another board once when someone pointed out that there are even some quite nasty Buddhists - something I had previously considered impossible.

22. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #15021 by Peter Hearty on December 28, 2006 at 7:36 am

John

Yes - that makes sense. I hadn't bothered to read the context.

> Except of course for the loony extremists circling in the Kuiper belt of the Xtian solar system.

LOL

I keep meaning to try and read more about this fasciniating period of history. The emergence of the intolerant, monotheistic version of Judaism is surely one of the pivotal moments in the history of mankind.

23. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #15015 by Peter Hearty on December 28, 2006 at 6:22 am

Mark

I've only just joined this thread, so apologies if I'm misreading you, but the Deut 28, 49-57 could refer to anyone.

In the decades preceeding the "discovery" of Deutoronomy in the Temple, the northern kingdom of Israel had been invaded and destroyed by the Assyrians. Judah itself was then invaded and destroyed by the Babylonians, followed by a Persian occupation. The centuries preceeding all this represented a period of Egyptian domination, and was followed by a period of Greek domination before the Romans finally arrived.

Given its strategic position, poor old Israel/Palestine was continually being threatened by more powerful neighbours.

Now if the prophecy had said something more specific, like mentioning the Romans, or the names of one of the Ceasars by name, then that might've been more impressive.

24. A Christmas thunderbolt for the arch-enemy of religion

Comment #14987 by Peter Hearty on December 27, 2006 at 9:05 pm

For those who found the whole article too tiresome to read in full, I present my own potted summary with some comments at the end.


I am God.
Gregor Mendel was a scientist and a believer, so it is possible to be both.
If you don't believe in me then you'll believe anything.
The human brain is more complicated than a 747, therefore I exist.
Most Theologians are sensible, therefore religion is OK.
Children can tell the difference between the real and imaginary, so if they believe in me I must exist.
People can be both spiritual and rational.
There are lots of philosophies and theologies that you didn't mention and which I won't mention either.
You don't know what you're talking about.
You are arrogant.
Nobody knows why anything exists, therefore I exist.
Philosophers and theologians will figure out why things exist.(4)
You say that all great literature should be replaced with science texts.
The sermon on the mount was not scientific, so you say it should be abolished.
People have done bad things for me. They have also done good things, therefore belief in me is a good thing.
Stalin and Hitler were atheists, therefore atheism is bad.
Marxism was atheistic, therefore atheism is bad.
Hitler hated Christianity, therefore it's a good thing.(1)
You are a facile optimist.
You justify Hitler.
Did I mention that you don't know what you're talking about?
Hitler persecuted the churches, therefore churches must be good things.
Did I mention that Stalin was an atheist? So was Mao Tse-tung.
You don't mention political philosophy. (2)
There are nice religions as well as nasty ones.
America's founding fathers were secularist, therefore religious, therefore secularist, which GW Bush isn't.
By arguing your beliefs you are persecuting those who believe in me.
Christians are a persecuted minority, so you shouldn't laugh at their beliefs.
Most _sensible_ Christians don't take some parts of the bible literally.
You are a militant atheist who talks about science instead of love. (3)
You think you are God and have portrayed Me in your image. You don't understand how mysterious I am.
Choral evensong is nice.
Without monasteries there would be no civility, education, scholarship, moral intellectual life, care of the poor and the sick, arts of husbandry, or community building.


(1) http://www.nobeliefs.com/HitlerSources.htm
(2) It wasn't responsible for communist purges though, atheism was.
(3) Obviously the two are mutually exclusive.
(4) Look how much useful stuff they've done already. Must exclude Marx however, who was a *bad* philospher.

25. The Only One in Step

Comment #14983 by Peter Hearty on December 27, 2006 at 7:27 pm

Could some of the better informed people out there help me with McIntosh's explanation.

"Molecules have no information system in them in themselves to form the structure necessary for the DNA which carries coded information. This information is neither matter nor energy. It is rather like software which is not defined by the material itself. That information which sits on the structure of DNA is itself ensuring that the free energy of each chemical bond is maintained.
Left to themselves the nucleotide bonds would decay, as well as the polypeptide bonds of amino acids made by the RNA to form proteins. The molecules themselves cannot raise the ordered free energy state."

In contrast to Dawkins' concise and clear description of the 2nd law, McIntosh's description sounds like gobbledegook.

My background is in maths, physics and computer science - my chemistry is weak and my biology almost non-existent. Am I missing some vital piece of knowledge that will help me decode what McIntosh is saying?