1. Ayaan Hirsi Ali versus Timothy Garton Ash

Comment #98777 by LookToWindward on December 14, 2007 at 9:13 am

I think Ayaan inadvertently hit on a fairly fundamental problem: can we really talk to the Muslim as a person endowed with the faculty of reason? Or indeed anyone who takes their religion seriously?

I believe, in fact, that we can assume that everyone (worth talking to) has the faculty of reason, but isn't one of the primary effects of religious indoctrination to incapacitate any process of reasoning, whether internalised or external, that contradicts certain crucial precepts of a faith?

Surely discourse on almost any subject central to this debate would eventually come back to the basic contradiction: the believer must reconcile the apparently sensible conclusions of reason with the central tenet of the perfection of their sacred text or the divinity of their prophet. And someone who takes their religion seriously would, I would argue by definition, always choose the central tenet over reason. In other words, they would say "that cannot be right because my religion (my book, my prophet) says otherwise", and at that point you must ask them to question the validity of their religion, which they are not prepared to do.

This is if you can persuade them to engage in discourse on a subject that appears to have a clear religious response on non-religious terms in the first place. Am I not right, isn't that one of the main disabling effects of indoctrination? In many cases it hardly seems clear how you could possibly frame your discourse in non-religious terms. A discussion about the wearing of the veil for instance - the only reason it is in question is because of the religious belief, so you are immediately faced with the proposition of engaging in a fundamental debate about the validity of your opponent's religion - right from the outset! Is that really realistic?

I was largely on Ayaan's side of the room, but perhaps Timothy Garton-Ash had a point. Someone, with greater ability than I to disregard truth in pursuit of a longer-term goal, might just need to encourage the liberal thinkers just so that one day in the future we can even /approach/ the argument as purely one of reason, and not doctrine.

2. Frequently Asked Questions about the Ayaan Hirsi Ali Security Trust

Comment #89581 by LookToWindward on November 21, 2007 at 7:01 am

nothing asked about PeterK's comments about bedclothes.

Answer: it is a snide reference to the phrase "You made the bed, you lie in it".

Individuals with high profiles /can/ generate the public will for change. You naysayers hide your heads in the sand and pretend that everyone's opinions and actions have equal impact if you like. Some of us have a better understanding of history.

edit: response to the above. Everyone is entitled to their opinion about what impact Ayaan's willingness to speak out about her faith is having, however moronic. Giving money is not compulsory. So give nothing.

3. I didn't know the FLEA CIRCUS was back in town!

Comment #85585 by LookToWindward on November 6, 2007 at 9:20 am

Did anyone listen to Tina on Sunday Worship on Radio 4? She was talking about Mother Teresa and issued such a classic it should go down as one of the most profound theist statements ever issued. She was talking about Mother Teresa's anguish over losing any feeling of the presence of God in her life for 50 years. She said

"Sometimes God's presence is most intensely experienced as a form of absence and yearning."

There you have it. God must be present /precisely because/ he feels so completely absent.

Stunning. It just makes your jaw drop, doesn't it?

The link to listen again (go to 23 minutes in):
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/programmes/sunday_worship/

4. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc. were atheists, and they were terrible! Answer that!

Comment #81771 by LookToWindward on October 25, 2007 at 6:50 am

I agree largely with Richard's main line: that there is no rational path from atheism to atrocity, but there is from religion (or, at least, most of them).

In general I would start by agreeing that the debate is a little too focussed on atheism vs theism, rather than on whether reason is desirable, and whether religion represents unreason.

Secondly, I would point out what an admission it is for the theist to use this argument: essentially they're admitting that the value of Christianity is as nothing more than a dam against human nature. Not only is it a very negative stance on religion, it is a very negative stance on human nature.

5. War in Heaven: Hitchens Meets D'Souza on Home Turf

Comment #81077 by LookToWindward on October 24, 2007 at 2:46 am

Clearly we need to break this meme that there's something terrible about us being a product of simple chemistry and the wranglings of selfish genes (let us not forget that even our desire to 'overcome the tyranny of the selfish gene' is born of competing genetic traits). It makes not a jot of difference to me whether I enjoy giving blood or the laugh of a child because of an instinct or because somebody else made me that way - I enjoy it nonetheless!

There is no view of life more meaningless, in my opinion, than one in which all objectives are part of someone else's plan, and not our own. That is the nihilistic view, not atheism's.

6. Debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #80557 by LookToWindward on October 22, 2007 at 6:47 am

Sam Harris was so right. This idiotic point about Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot is not going to go away. Even in a debate which is about Christianity and not supposed to be about atheism as the 'alternative'.

Richard Dawkins' response is the best. There is no rational argument for atrocity with atheism, and atheism alone, as its premise. Lenin could argue all he wanted that the churches must be destroyed, it doesn't make atheism culpable.

7. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #75930 by LookToWindward on October 4, 2007 at 5:27 am

Surely the point is that theology is a legitimate subject /if there is a God/, and a futile and silly one if there isn't (because knowing the mind and nature of something imaginary is impossible).

Establish, esteemed professor of theology, first whether or not god, or Lucifer, or the Great Green Arkleseizure, exist, and /then/ you might received my tax pounds to study it.

8. The Problem with Atheism

Comment #75585 by LookToWindward on October 3, 2007 at 4:51 am

While I agree with a lot of Sam's points, like it or not, we /are/ atheists! And on the tactical point, I think far more is served by bringing atheists out of the closet and making atheism both socially and politically acceptable, than by suppressing the term and merely encouraging everyone to advocate reason. Even theocrats advocate reason. The ranks of the ACLU and disestablishmentarians can be filled with the trickle of secularists and rationalists, or by the torrent of newly-declared atheists. Which do you prefer?

At the convention Dan Dennett pointed out that he'd take contemplatives much more seriously if they ever came out of the cave having learned anything /useful/. Let us look at those parts of the world where such practices are commonplace and ask ourselves whether people really are more content. I would add that it seems all Sam is saying is that meditation can help /remove/ the /burden/ of discursive thought, not actually add anything good in its place. I am content after a night's sleep as well, but if I could (physically) go without it, I'd rather be doing something useful in that time. I could have written my book by now...

9. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #53754 by LookToWindward on July 3, 2007 at 3:24 am

Fanusi Khiyal:
>>I've said this before: if you don't consider your life valuable, well, razorblades are cheap. Please, don't let me keep you...The decision to live is irreducible. You can't trace it to any further ones.

Yes, that's precisely what I just said. It is you that claims that absolutes are necessary. They are not. Preservation is necessary because evolution demands it, not because it is an absolute.

>> This is what free will means.

No. Free will to the religious means something impossible: that we can both 'will' something non-randomly, and make that choice independently of (ultimately) external causal factors.

10. Science of the Soul? 'I Think, Therefore I Am' Is Losing Force

Comment #52796 by LookToWindward on June 28, 2007 at 5:26 am

Ah yes, that squeezing sound as God is shifted to fit an ever-smaller gap. I applaud these religious scientists for favouring the evidence over dogma, but one can't help but wonder what they're clinging on for? If they've got the intelligence to realise the unity of mind and brain, then they must also have surmised that God patently isn't anything that takes any interest in us, so what's the point? Give it up, and be all the happier for it.

11. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #52429 by LookToWindward on June 27, 2007 at 2:41 am

>>That, my dear sir, _is_ an absolute moral standpoint.<<

Tripe. It is subject to revision just like everything else.

>>For the upteenth time: By the standard of what is necessary for human life. Which means what is necessary for the life of each human individual.<<

And why is human life valuable? Absolutism makes no sense without a god, and is immoral with a god. We choose moral guidelines that enhance life and reject those that detract from it because evolution ensures that we do. We need no further justification than that. To try to pretend that it's some kind of absolute component of the fabric of the universe is not only false, it makes the whole thing arbitrary. Why /ought/ we to follow that moral absolute? And if we can justify that, why /ought/ we to adhere to the higher justification? And so on ad infinitum. This is not an 'ought' question.

12. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #52081 by LookToWindward on June 26, 2007 at 5:40 am

Fanusi Khiyal, how do you judge those things *with* an absolute moral code? By what standard is the original code judged? Is it just the whim of God that one thing should be good and another bad? Are consequences not important?

Absolutism is immoral. Actions are judged by their effect on the survival of the human race, not by reading off of some list. We don't need to agree on anything, it is simply the case - if we don't act in the human race's best interests, we'll die out, and will no longer be around to argue about it.

We can argue forever about what best benefits humanity and that's a good thing, but the most successful societies appear to be the ones which embrace solidarity and compassion. Hence this would seem to be moral. Any other drift towards absolutism simply concedes to arbitrariness or whim. It is the consequences of our actions that are important, that is how we value them.

13. The Present Threat of the Religious Right to Our Modern Freedoms

Comment #51841 by LookToWindward on June 25, 2007 at 9:47 am

I must admit, I'm not entirely sure things are as bad as this. Could an established church be precisely what the US needs? After all, religion could hardly be more irrelevant in the UK and we have established religion. Perhaps it's the free market model of religion in the US that keeps it so boisterous.

Let's not forget that the main reason the 1st amendment was supported when it was written was because of religious minorities afraid of persecution. Establishment is surely bad for religion.

On the other hand, I could be wrong and the US could spiral downwards in the direction of Iran or the Taliban...I dunno.

14. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #51811 by LookToWindward on June 25, 2007 at 5:25 am

What on earth does Peter Hitchens think is governing God's decision about 'absolute' right and wrong? Whim? Sounds like a horrific totalitarianism just as Christopher paints it.

15. The Great God Debate

Comment #50150 by LookToWindward on June 15, 2007 at 9:39 am

I don't think Hitch interrupts so much as always has more to say, so when someone else comes in because they think he's finished, he carries on before they have a chance to get any steam up. But when he's properly finished, or the other person has gone more than a few words into their response, he doesn't interrupt any more.

16. Fighting the Fundamentalists

Comment #44613 by LookToWindward on May 25, 2007 at 5:35 am

Poor Richard can't win, can he? Attempt to address theological rationalisations for belief in gods and he is lambasted by people like Ruse for not addressing the 'real' reasons why the average person believes. Talk about the real reasons, and he's accused of failing to examine the nuanced intellectualising of modern theological discourse.

The main point that people like Ruse have missed is that non-believers have been pandering to believers and forming alliances with liberals against fanatics for centuries, with no apparent stamping out of fanaticism. If nothing else, Dawkins', Dennett's, Hitchens' and Harris' rhetoric (among others) has massively raised awareness among non-believers both of the dangers and the issues involved. How can he (Ruse) expect to get anywhere with his agenda if nobody's even listening?

17. Would the World Be Safer Without Religion?

Comment #44118 by LookToWindward on May 23, 2007 at 10:45 am

Some fair points, but let us not forget that religion is assumed to be hereditary, thus generating persistent communities. Political allegiance just doesn't work the same. If the labels were changed to 'Orange' and 'Green', the communities would fragment. Not only would children be more encouraged to examine their political persuasion rationally, but they are far less likely to be drawn into the tit-for-tat cycle.

18. Christopher Hitchens Is a Treasure

Comment #44027 by LookToWindward on May 23, 2007 at 7:41 am

RRRRRRRR! Why won't Amazon send me God Is Not Great? I've been waiting for months now! Why on earth couldn't he just publish in the UK at the same time as the US? I could have ordered from Amazon.com instead of .co.uk and had it shipped by now!

By the way, I accidentally clicked on 'offensive' on somebody's post above, sorry about that - hope it doesn't get removed!

19. Some US Muslims say suicide attacks OK

Comment #44014 by LookToWindward on May 23, 2007 at 7:25 am

I'm a little confused. I don't think there is anything wrong with suicide bombing, per se, in war for instance, although I certainly wouldn't volunteer. The question should be about who is targeted, not just about whether the attacker dies in the attack.

20. Shark virgin birth mystery is solved

Comment #44010 by LookToWindward on May 23, 2007 at 7:17 am

Perhaps the shark was 'born to the medichlorians'?

21. World's most prominent atheist takes on the Biblical God (and other topics)

Comment #39265 by LookToWindward on May 10, 2007 at 8:35 am

There are few things sadder and more depressing than watching grown adults speak of fairytales like children.

22. Pundit Christopher Hitchens picks a fight in book, 'God is Not Great'

Comment #36064 by LookToWindward on April 30, 2007 at 5:04 am

The reason to write books like this is to persuade children and educators, not believers. You can make people who were previously on the fence more determined to bring up their children free of religious indoctrination and aware of the dangers of faith and the value of critical thinking. It's a long-term process, not a quick fix.

23. Flea Circus!

Comment #33019 by LookToWindward on April 19, 2007 at 2:54 am

FleaCircusDirector, and anyone else who is confused: Dawkins' comment on the books coming out in rebuttal to The God Delusion: "Did ever a dog praise its fleas?", a quote from Yeats.

24. Einstein & Faith

Comment #31530 by LookToWindward on April 13, 2007 at 6:36 am

Einstein was just as confused by religious indoctrination (by society if not by his family) as the next man, in this respect he was not special I'm afraid. He so desperately wanted to anthropomorphise awe, to put it on some kind of pedestal, but he knew he couldn't, in intellectual honesty, do so properly, so he plumped for some fuzzy fence-sitting position. As so many do.

Einstein was quite wrong, of course, that atheists suffer from some inability to feel awe; he was wrong that 'God does not play dice'; he was wrong that his equations needed a cosmological constant set to keep the universe from expanding or contracting; he was wrong that the unknown, the mysterious and the wonderful need special titles or reverence in order to be properly inspiring. He was wrong about a lot of things.

25. Is God poison?

Comment #31529 by LookToWindward on April 13, 2007 at 6:11 am

No Helian, you didn't say that that was anti-Americanism and I thought it was clear I wasn't saying that. I was *telling you* what negative stereotypes people generally have of Americans and that this did not amount to hatred or unfair criticism (which you agree with). Therefore the average person is not anti-American. Anti-Americanism is not rife. Get it?

26. Is God poison?

Comment #31396 by LookToWindward on April 12, 2007 at 10:12 am

Hatred is far too strong a word for what most people feel. If I am inclined to make negative generalisations about Americans, it is mainly that they tend to be very nationalistic, something which we Europeans are understandably very fearful of. Secondly, it is that they tend, at least in groups, to have quite negative stereotypes of Europeans, particularly that Europeans are lazy, snooty, and cowardly (and had to be 'bailed out' of two world wars). Thirdly, they tend to be very religious and I am anti-religion for, I am convinced, very good reasons. These are facts and you, Helian, would have an argument on your hands if you wished to deny them. I have witnessed this in American journalism, American literature, American entertainment and, most importantly, from Americans that I myself have met (and I've met many, most of them nice, and I have many American friends). Now I also make positive generalisations about Americans but I believe my negative ones, if the circumstances are such that I am inclined to make any, are perfectly fair. To call this hatred is nothing short of farcical.

27. Is God poison?

Comment #31194 by LookToWindward on April 11, 2007 at 10:06 am

I think much of Richard's comments on religion are pretty mocking, although I certainly wouldn't call it schoolboy mockery. Simple use of terms like 'faith-head' and the comparison of religious belief to a baby's dummy, these things all add up to insult in the mind of the believer, whether intended or no: religious believers are ignorant, dogmatic, and infantile. In fact, Richard has in the past called religious belief infantile (in his excellent 'atheist thought for the day' which I'd love to see posted here).

Personally I think mockery is a perfectly valid form of attack, as is rhetoric. After all, you're not trying to convert the faith-heads, you're trying to convert waverers, particularly young people, and they respond to mockery. Make religious belief seem moronic and no cool kid wants 'in'. What I don't want to see is RD claiming that he is making no attempt to be offensive; I think that is at best deceptive. He may rightly expect the believers to be less sensitive, but he surely cannot honestly expect no offense to be taken to such mockery.

Are we losing? I don't think so. We may be winning, but at worst things are unchanged in the long term outlook. The urgency stems from the danger of modern super-weapons. We need no escalation of religious faith to make things dangerous when mass destruction can be put easily in the hands of fanatics. The argument, as I see it, is that moderate faith is an enabler for fanaticism and that fanatacism, while it wouldn't be eliminated, would be dramatically reduced if religion were to quietly disappear. Hell, or noisily disappear, I don't care!

28. The God Debate

Comment #29221 by LookToWindward on April 2, 2007 at 6:12 am

As usual, Sam shoots himself in the foot with his wishy-washy views on ethics and spirituality. RD is so much better at answering those questions. Of course there is no absolute morality Sam, there is just what improves lives and what detracts from them.

29. Richard Dawkins at The Sunday Times Oxford Literary Festival

Comment #28476 by LookToWindward on March 29, 2007 at 10:23 am

If somebody tells you they used to be an atheist, you should tell them they can't have been very good at it.

30. 1986 Oxford Union Debate

Comment #25342 by LookToWindward on March 12, 2007 at 9:05 am

Listening to this event confirmed my opinion of Oxford Union members as puerile narcissistic loud-mouthed sociopaths. With small dicks. Much like the politicians they usually go on to become.

And I am exceedingly pleased to have this affirmation of my decision not to join the Union (nor, in fact, its lesser, if slightly less hacky version in Cambridge). Go me!

31. British Book Awards shortlists 2007

Comment #24712 by LookToWindward on March 8, 2007 at 6:46 am

Nobel literature prizes are usually awarded with more than a small nod to how influential the work is, not just its literary quality. Can you seriously rule out RD being considered very highly influential in time? Anyone with three book-length rebuttals to his work has got to be considered pretty influential!

32. She's No Fundamentalist: What people get wrong about Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

Comment #24711 by LookToWindward on March 8, 2007 at 6:39 am

scot, obviously with no god there cannot be any absolute morals. Unless you're suggesting the universe itself somehow imposes a moral law on us (some philosophers have thought so).

There can of course be 'universal' morals, morals to which all human cultures have adhered; but that just tends to be a product of being human, not an innate property of existence. And there are pretty much always exceptions.

Lord Asriel said "I am not sure if such a collective approach to happiness is a good moral guide. I think individual freedom should serve as a better moral compass."

Tough one. I would suggest that individual freedom may be a better guideline for determining moral distinctions, but surely the utilitarian approach should be the method to assess success or failure of the approach? I don't think a particular person cares how free they are if they have long-term happiness. Look at Christians and Muslims for instance - they believe they are happier in servitude to their god. You're not going to sway them by pointing out their servitude, only by arguing that their servitude is not, in point of fact, conducive to their long-term prosperity.

But you're right of course. Moral philosophy is a thoroughly knotty issue. Fascinating, in fact.

33. She's No Fundamentalist: What people get wrong about Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

Comment #24686 by LookToWindward on March 8, 2007 at 4:04 am

Ali and Hitchens are practically the only people brave enough to say "Islamic values and Christian values are worse than secular Enlightenment values". I commend them.

Of course, the hyper-post-modernist-relativists are right to say that there is no absolute moral distinction between, say, treating women as equals and treating them like shit, because there are no absolute morals. But there is a practical distinction, a distinction for consequences to the sum total of human happiness, prosperity, and long-term prospects. We foolish liberals admit that we 'arbitrarily' call such aims 'good' in order to make moral distinctions. But the relativists have yet to come up with an alternative.

34. God: The Failed Hypothesis

Comment #24175 by LookToWindward on March 5, 2007 at 6:30 am

Robert, most theists do make specific claims about their god that can be disproved empirically and/or logically, such as the efficacy of intercessory prayer, 'infinite attributes' such as omnipotence, self-defeating phenomena like free will, scriptural perfection, etc.

If you reduce god to what you call a non-disprovable hypothesis, you do not have anything like any god I've heard of. So in what sense is that a god? It isn't. You've got to use legitimate language, you can't allow the theist to wriggle out of their corner simply by changing their definitions at will.

35. If God is talking to you, too, Mr Cameron - don't listen

Comment #23437 by LookToWindward on February 28, 2007 at 4:04 pm

There's no mystery as to why Portillo now speaks sense when before he spoke claptrap. Out of the Commons, he is now able both to talk freely and to change his mind. Nothing solidifies wrong opinions like getting elected.

The strongest champion of secularism in the House of Commons is Dr Evan Harris, a Lib Dem. I have to admit that it's a hefty factor in my voting habits...

36. Bishops must not sit in reformed House of Lords

Comment #23434 by LookToWindward on February 28, 2007 at 3:51 pm

Because the qualifications for becoming a Bishop are spurious at best, and the body responsible for putting forward these people, who have real legislative influence, has a specific agenda. It's bad enough that the other Lords are appointed by political parties and tend to have qualifications no better than fame or, indeed, notoriety.

37. William Crawley meets Richard Dawkins

Comment #23433 by LookToWindward on February 28, 2007 at 3:46 pm

The fundamental assumptions of science are just that: assumptions. It is not faith. They're just what it is necessary to assume in order to make practical sense of the universe, which bears out in actual useful predictions and innovations. If you like, you can privately believe that, say, the real world doesn't actually exist, while still doing perfectly valid science.

Labelling of children is abuse, pure and simple. The consequences of conferring onto a child a set of beliefs through the act of labelling is not some trivial trick that can be dismissed by those who know the child can't 'really understand it', it has actual consequences, none of which are positive.

38. Faith

Comment #23102 by LookToWindward on February 26, 2007 at 10:35 am

Secular fundamentalism is such a funny idea. Atheists may be obstinate and dogmatic, but surely the word fundamentalism invokes an immutable scripture, something the atheists simply don't have.

The question is really not who is the rudest, it is who is open to argument and who is not. Find me a religiot who is open to the argument that religion is wrong, then let's decide which is which.

39. Ayaan Hirsi Ali on Islam

Comment #23093 by LookToWindward on February 26, 2007 at 8:52 am

I haven't got the time to list all the great reasons for us to look forward to the oil running out (as well as the reasons not to), but near the top of the list has got to be the impoverishment of the Saudi Arabian Wahabbists.

40. Atheists come in last

Comment #23080 by LookToWindward on February 26, 2007 at 7:00 am

Jesus' first and most important commandment was "you shall love the Lord Your God with all your mind and all your heart and all your soul". You are commanded to love God. Now, at the /very least/ this would rule out Americans being allowed to be atheists, if there was indeed no contradiction between the New Testament and the Constitution. George Bush Snr would probably agree that atheists should be locked up, but I doubt many legislators would.

Sorry, I'm not an American, but the contradictions are as clear as day.

41. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #22810 by LookToWindward on February 23, 2007 at 3:01 am

Sancus, you said

Objective truth is true even when there are no minds present.

This may be true but it cannot be verified. Therefore what does it mean to say something is true if there is no consensus? It simply cannot be justified. If truth is to be discovered only consensus will do it and it matters not a jot the brilliance of the genius with the original proposal.

Andrew Sullivan seems now to have descended from reason into purely emotional oratory. Where is the man's argument? I couldn't care less how great Jesus makes him feel, or might make me feel, if he wasn't god and there's no heaven then christianity is a lie and that's all that matters here.

It is dreadfully sad that Sullivan's aspirations are so demented that he is actually imploring us to withdraw from any attempts to improve human knowledge. Apparently man is an innately corrupting force, and any such attempt can only lead to nightmarish dystopia; God, on the other hand, can avoid the human pitfalls and so instead of improving the earth we should sit on our hands and wait until we're dead. How desperately small-minded.

Sullivan is wrong about the 'faith' of science. Scientific axioms like the rejection of solipsism and the continuity of physical behaviour etc are merely assumptions used to make sense of the world. We choose them because they allow us to come up with practically useful knowledge. The knowledge is contingent on the assumptions, yes, but who cares? I could throw away the cure for cancer because maybe the results I've been getting for the last 5 years will change tomorrow, and who knows if the world really exists anyway?...or I could save lives and improve the human condition. Not only is our use of basic assumptions to get results most definitively not 'faith', but the assumptions are not arbitrary - the removal of any one of them instantly turns the universe utterly unfathomable.

The world of the religious is so, so, SO tiny, so trivial, so uninteresting. You've got to feel for them.

42. Battle for Europe's secular values

Comment #22568 by LookToWindward on February 19, 2007 at 6:54 pm

Hey teapot, since you're against cooperation, why don't we divide everything up into ever smaller pieces until every individual is their own state. Or did the anarchists already invent that one?

Or, hey, how about we just have a graded hierarchy of government over ever increasing geographic areas, each responsible only for those things common to everyone within the boundaries? Oh wait...that's what we have...

43. Battle for Europe's secular values

Comment #22566 by LookToWindward on February 19, 2007 at 3:48 pm

If there's one thing that unifies Europe it is the wholesale rejection of religion in favour of secular states based on Enlightenment principles. They should stick that in Constitution.

44. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #21477 by LookToWindward on February 9, 2007 at 11:24 am

Sancus, your comments about dreams seem to be missing your own point! If something is so subjective it cannot be experienced by any other individual and therefore objectively verified, what precisely of use does it tell you? If you want to find out what your dreams mean about you, the only recourse is to study other people's dreams; otherwise any conclusions you make are entirely arbitrary. Or to give an example under conscious control, let's say that thinking of Jesus makes Andrew Sullivan peaceful and happy. That tells him nothing except that he can think of Jesus whenever he wants to feel peaceful and happy. It's certainly insufficient to legitimise a world view; nor even speculation about what sorts of mental images lead to what sorts of emotions in people in general - you can only do that with objective verification.

There is no such thing as subjective truth about reality, even some aspect of reality peculiar to an individual. Truth demands consensus. And I agree with Sam that 'spiritual' things like what makes people happy, and peaceful, and moral, are questions about reality. Maybe you do too and I've misrepresented you, in which case, I apologise.

45. Does Richard Dawkins exist?

Comment #21391 by LookToWindward on February 9, 2007 at 2:40 am

Well, I'm with Richard. It had some funny bits, but it was anything but friendly. Saying that everything in his books is dumb and reeling off a list of abusive terms, this is just baiting, and feeble baiting at that. Invective directed at an omnipowerful dictator is nothing at all like invective directed at a living human being.

On the other hand, Richard does deal it out and he can expect to get it back. However they are intended, terms like 'faith-head' and 'delusion' are just bound to wind people up. Don't get me wrong, I don't want Richard to tone it down, I'm totally in favour of mucking into the foray with as much invective as is being dealt out by the opposition; but you can't be surprised that this kind of personal attack crops up.

46. Panel discussion on atheism where no atheists are included

Comment #20963 by LookToWindward on February 7, 2007 at 6:09 am

That was despicable and offensive. But let's be careful what we complain about here. We do not have a right, as a group or as individuals, to be free from being offended. The piece was deplorable because it was bad journalism, plain and simple.

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

Comment #20942 by LookToWindward on February 7, 2007 at 4:08 am

Alister McGrath's "Dawkins' God", is a terribly feeble attempt to counter Dawkins' arguments. Most of its content consists of accusing him of overstepping the bounds of his expertise (McGrath's one of those theologians who basically thinks you have to believe in god before you can criticise religion); and attacking a pathetically literal strawman interpretation of memes.

I expect no better from this new book.

Still, I would be interested to hear from Richard his side of the story regarding the cutting of McGrath's interview from the Root of All Evil documentary.

48. What a Friend We Have in Dawkins

Comment #20385 by LookToWindward on February 2, 2007 at 5:17 am

How to deconvert masses of people at once? Stick a group of religious zealots in a plane and get them to fly it into a skyscraper during office hours.

49. No stoning, Canada migrants told

Comment #20380 by LookToWindward on February 2, 2007 at 4:48 am

Let's stop mincing our words guys. These immigrants must integrate because our values are simply better than theirs. If it's unfair to claim that all muslims agree with stoning and female genital mutilation, then that's one thing; but it's totally ridiculous to claim that because of cultural context, stoning and FGM can /ever/ be moral.

50. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #20307 by LookToWindward on February 1, 2007 at 5:11 pm

Truth. Bah. What does it mean to say that something about the nature of reality (as opposed to something within our own mind or experience) is true if it cannot be independently verified by someone other than ourselves? It may, in fact, be true, but to claim it is true is simply an unfounded assertion.

It may be fair for me to claim that I'm in love. But it is never fair for me to claim someone loves me because I /feel/ it to be so. The point is, when it comes to the nature of reality, objective things, things which exist outside our heads and should be the same for all people, scientific truth is the /only/ kind of truth.