1. New Noah's Ark ready to sail

Comment #35965 by John A. Michon on April 29, 2007 at 3:15 pm

I have not yet been able to get a picture in my comments to this site, but here is, as an alternative, a (Dutch language) site that shows a number of pictures of Mr. Huibers achievement.

www.contimeta.com/nieuws/000000976209a7702.html

The site does not claim that the thing is irreducibly complex. One should realize, however, that it should be seen as a scale 1:5 model of the intelligent design that was handed down to Noah personally and has been reported in handsome detail in Genesis 6:14-16. In reality it seems to be largely a sponsoring stunt of a manufacturer of carpenter tools that goes by the name of 'Contimeta'.

2. God Is in the Dendrites

Comment #35655 by John A. Michon on April 28, 2007 at 5:54 am

'God is in the dendrites' is a proposition that only becomes meaningful if it is given a material connotation, that is, if it is stated in terms of one or more hypotheses about a neuroanatomical structure, neurocognitive function or mechanisms or cognitive strategies. These represent what Daniel Dennett once identified as the physical, design, and intentional stance respectively (1978, 1986), or call it hardware, firmware, and software respectively.

Such hypotheses come in three versions that I usually call absolute, strong, and weak.

If God is absolutely in the dendrites, or at least in the CNS, one would need to specify the location, the neurodynamics, and/or the chemistry involved, once one would have specified what would count as a manifestation of God and nothing else. Then the normal empirical route would involve knocking out, or otherwise influencing that location, etc. to see if and in what manner - qualitatively and quantitatively - God and nothing else would be affected. The crux is the italicized part of the preceding sentences. It will be impossible to separate God's attributes from, say, those of frozen waterfalls or Haydn's Schöpfung, simply because all such thoughts and feelings are human thoughts and feelings that are generated in a human brain.

A strong hypothesis would state, for instance, that there are individual differences in religiosity that are due to genetic (i.e., heritable) factors. This has been disconfirmed in strictly controlled research by Boomsma and her Behavioural Genetics team at Amsterdam's (confessional!) Free University.

A religious upbringing reduces the influence of genetic factors on disinhibition: Evidence for interaction between genotype and environment on personality
DI Boomsma, EJC de Geus, GCM van Baal and JR Koopmans (1999)
Twin Research, 2, 115-125

http://www.tweelingenregister.org/nederlands/verslaggeving/NTR_publicaties/TRBoomsmaDisinh.pdf

Information on personality, on anxiety and depression and on several aspects of religion was collected in 1974 Dutch families consisting of adolescent and young adult twins and their parents. Analyses of these data showed that differences between individuals in religious upbringing, in religious affiliation and in participation in church activities are not influenced by genetic factors. The familial resemblance for different aspects of religion is high, but can be explained entirely by environmental influences common to family members. Shared genes do not contribute to familial resemblances in religion. The absence of genetic influences on variation in several dimensions of religion is in contrast to findings of genetic influences on a large number of other traits that were studied in these twin families. Differences in religious background are associated with differences in personality, especially in Sensation Seeking. Subjects with a religious upbringing, who are currently religious and who engage in church activities score lower on the scales of the Sensation Seeking Questionnaire. The most pronounced effect is on the Disinhibition scale. The resemblances between twins for the Disinhibition scale differ according to their religious upbringing. Receiving a religious upbringing seems to reduce the influence of genetic factors on Disinhibition, especially in males.

Which leaves the weak hypothesis that religious behaviour is in the dendrites only because it has been brought there by upbringing (conditioning, persuasion, threat), and not because it is genetically transmitted from one generation to the next. And that is essentially the conclusion to be drawn from the Boomsma et al. study

Notice also that the distinguishing behaviour, namely lower disinhibition, can also be described as greater obedience or greater submission.

3. God Is in the Dendrites

Comment #35457 by John A. Michon on April 27, 2007 at 8:10 am

1. Comment #35422 by epeeist on April 27, 2007 at 5:45 am

As you can see from my avatar I am a fencing coach. Now strangely enough when I take a beginner and put them through a training course they tend to develop more musculature and coordination. I haven't measured it myself but apparently long time fencers have increased left brain/right brain interaction.

From one fencer to the other:

Well, musculature is not the point. Muscle growth will not cross the left-right boundary. And transfer of a motor skill between brain hemispheres is very limited (because the fencing movements are very asymmetric, unlike for instance what a pianist or a dancer learns). And generally speaking, coordination and agility will naturally increase in whatever it is you learn to do, if you do it long enough.

What really happens in fencing (and boxing!) is that eventually left-handers gain a tremendous advantage over right-handers. A older study, done around 1980, showed that of the then world top 25 fencers 12 (48 percent) were left-handed and even more miraculously 8 of the top 10!
That, I should hasten to add is not a sure sign of intelligent design (although as an extreme left-hander I fully appreciate the wisdom contained in this matter of fact). It is just a matter of natural selection. Since approximately 90 percent of humanity is right-handed and only some 10 percent left-handed, the usual tirage will have two right-handers (RR) in 81% of the cases. In 18% it is a matter of RL, and in 1% there will be two lefties (LL). R's will therefore mostly fight their own garden variety of R's, L's have an advantage of almost always fighting R's giving them an opportunity to acquire all kinds of defences and attack possibilites against opposite-handed opponents whom they will encounter in no less than 18/19 = 95 of 100 tirages.

And finally Lefties will begin to encounter each other only when they rise through the ranks: from a miserable 5% (1 in 19) at the beginning, to 64% if they belong to the top 10 of the world (assuming that the 1980 proportion is also valid today). That alone turns upper echelon fencing an altogether different game that righties can hardly play a role in, given the inferior experience and mundane skills that are strictly suitable only for fighting the other righties.

In sum: A clear case of climbing mount improbable.

4. Vote for the Time 100 - Are They Worthy?

Comment #34755 by John A. Michon on April 25, 2007 at 5:46 am

The funny thing I noticed was that, after giving RD a resounding 1 (mistakenly, because I thought I was to produce a ranking) I could vote again by just leaving the page and getting to it immediately again (allowing me to bring my score back halfway were I had wanted it to be in the first place).
This suggests to me that a platoon of Thais may have worked overtime to get their good old King Bhumipol to a current vote of 2.64*10^5. Similarly a horde of Rainmen may have been autistically hammering away to get their hero (who, I'm made to believe, is a singer) to an impressive runner up number of 2.52*10^5.

If I'm right, then it should be easy to beat these numbers. (It is exactly the way Dutch evangelicals succeeded in having a fresh translation of the Bible elected "Book of the Year" in 2005.

But that would be an act of appalling dishonesty that nonbelievers would never commit! They wouldn't, would they?

5. One Hell of a Religious Read

Comment #34474 by John A. Michon on April 24, 2007 at 7:16 am

Re: Comment #34456 by BAEOZ

Baruch (later Benedictus, and Bento for his friends) de Spinoza (1632-1677) was of Portuguese extraction. In those days many Portuguese Jews found a relatively safe haven in the Dutch Republic.

And you may believe Matthew Stewart when he writes "We live in an age defined by its reaction to Spinoza and all that he recorded in his philosophy." (o.c., p. 17). The reaction is by far not over yet. A year ago a committee under the president of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences published a so-called historical 'canon', a list of the 50 most characteristic events and people that have shaped the culture and (international) influence of the Netherlands through the ages. Spinoza is one of these, and the only philosopher. The Evangelicals (yes we have these too, but they less numerous here, thank ... Oopss!), these Evangelicals then, are really furious and try to move heaven and earth to get poor Bento removed from the list... "and if not, they will not accept the canon and make one that suits them better."

But, mark my words and read my lips: It took the Vatican 390 years to retract its opinion about Galileo. Therefore we can expect the Vatican to recognize Spinoza's worldview 390 years after Spinoza's death, that is 60 years from now. Church bells ring slowly, but they definitely ring!

In philosophy Modern Times started once the public got fed up with the Renaissance, say around 1600. Modern philosophy includes such people as Descartes, Spinoza, Locke, Hume, Kant, Rousseau, Marx, James, Whitehead, Russell, Wittgenstein, and Quine. Now, however, Post-Modernists want you to believe that Modern Times were over... well, after the Second World War.

Which remains to be seen.

6. One Hell of a Religious Read

Comment #34409 by John A. Michon on April 24, 2007 at 1:58 am

13. Comment #34361 by BAEOZ on April 23, 2007 at 9:51 pm

Hey Spinoza, as an atheist philosopher in the making (I aspire anyway) can you point me to some good introductory texts? I've read Dawkins', Harris', Denetts' books and a few others in the last few months and am developing a hunger for the philosophical underpinnings of this. Any recomendations to help me along in my self study would be cool. Thanks.

Although your request is not addressed to me, I thought Spinoza is just about the best source to consult if you want to know what the struggle between religion and atheism is all about. But you're approaching very, very much the wrong Spinoza (I leave it up to you to consider why).

The real Spinoza (in space almost my neighbour just around the corner, in time sadly some 350 years away) was a very quiet, soft-spoken and articulate person, one of the deepest thinkers of all time (as even his fiercest religious opponents had to admit).

BAOEZ, I think it would offer you a great deal of illumination if you would start with Matthew Stewart's brilliant and almost breath taking "The courtier and the heretic: Leibniz, Spinoza, and the fate of God in the modern world". New Haven: Yale University Press, 2005 (and recently, 2007 in paperback).

Spinoza -- the real, civilized one, I mean -- did in fact offer the world the most intelligent (ultimately: atheistic) way out of the struggle between science and religion. He simply equated the two (God sive Natura, i.e. God, also known as Nature)... Well, simply is not the right word, but he worked out in detail what this step implies -- religiously, psychologically, ethically and politically. Leibniz, on the other hand, who met Spinoza only once (that's what the book is about) got away from that encounter with ruffled feathers, spending much of his further life trying to regain his intellectual equilibrium (by defending some middle of the road Good-God idea).

And if that story appeals to you, you might turn next to Jonathan Israel's "Radical Enlightenment: Philosophy and the making of modernity, 1650-1750". Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2001. That volume (~800 pp.) will give you the full works: all ideas that now circulate in the debate did so at that time. The difference is that most of the participants in the debate knew what they were talking about, philosophically, religiously and scientifically (although, yes, of course science was only just beginning: Darwin and Crick & Watson were nowhere in sight yet, and Newton hadn't even published his Principia).

And perhaps, to wet your appetite, here is a quote from Matthew Stewart's book:

"Spinoza did not invent the modern world, but he was perhaps the first to observe it well. He was the first to attempt to answer the ancient questions of philosophy from a distinctly modern perspective. In his philosophical system, he offered a concept of God befitting the universe revealed by modern science -- a universe ruled only by the cause and effect of natural laws, without purpose or design. He describes what it means to be human after our pretension to occupy a special place in nature has been shattered. He prescribes a means to find happiness and virtue in an era when the old theologies have no credibility. And he advocates a liberal, democratic system of government suitable for an inherently fragmented and diverse society." (o.c., 15-16)

Enjoy!

7. Pope abolishes limbo

Comment #34141 by John A. Michon on April 23, 2007 at 10:37 am

Limbo for Rent

Should one believe that this decision of the Vatican is really an acknowledgment of being wrong on a matter of life and death (or, as the case may be, a matter only of "a hypothesis")? Rather, this decision to close down Limbo suggests that Rome is concerned about its impact on the people in the poor countries, especially those countries, like Soedan that lose shocking numbers of children as a result of famine, draught warfare, revolutions, and/or cultural (often religiously inspired) clashes.

Must be a huge consolation to the poor parents who are losing their children as result of these circumstances, to know that the next station for the little ones will not be yet another refugee camp.

8. Irish poll shows parents no longer want to force religion on to children

Comment #32825 by John A. Michon on April 18, 2007 at 11:25 am

Posted earlier in a different thread

Comment #31829 by John A. Michon on April 14, 2007 at 1:45 pm

GOD IN THE NETHERLANDS 2007

Since 1966 the Social and Cultural Planning Office of the Netherlands [http://www.scp.nl/english/] has sounded at regular intervals the religious feelings of the citizens of that country. Tomorrow 15 April, 2007 the newest report will be made public. The report can be summarized as follows : in the Netherlands belief in God continues to decrease.

Fewer and fewer people attend church and a small minority of citizens believes in a God and in an afterlife. For the 40 percent who still consider themselves believers, on the other hand, their faith is becoming a more significant aspect of their life. At least they acknowledge the role of the church as a 'moral anchor' and a 'source of meaning' in life.

The opinions of a representative sample of 1132 Dutch citizens show a consistent trend compared with the earlier inquiries. Comparing the results from 1966 with the newly collected outcomes, we see that
- atheism (there is no God) increases from 6% in 1966 to 14% in 2006;
- agnostics (existence N/A) increase from 16% in 1966 to 26% in 2006;
- "ietsisme" (something-ism) not measured previously, but 26% in 2006;
- afterlife decreased from 56% in 1966 to 40% in 2006;
- belief in 'heaven' has dropped to 21% in 2006.

Religion has become a 'life style' commodity: sometimes it is fun and sometimes it may offer support or a way of expressing one's feelings. Churches compare with hospitals: its good that we have them but in both cases you do better if you can stay away from them.

Attempts at restoring the old customs won't work. The spiritual -- including 'ietsism', that is the unspecified belief in some higher force - has become a highly personal aspect of life. The established churches will be tolerated if and only if they succeed in being socially meaningful, that is, service-oriented; provided they do so with a minimum of metaphysical ballyhoo.

I do not to wish to engage in double-posting, but in this case the data from Ireland invite a comparison with these recent Dutch findings. It seems the Irish are catching up on their worldviews with as much vigour as they succeeded in quickly becoming one of the strongest member countries of the EU, economically speaking, having lagged behind for so long.

9. As Religious Strife Grows, Europe's Atheists Seize Pulpit

Comment #31943 by John A. Michon on April 15, 2007 at 2:22 am

Would it perhaps be a good idea to stop quarreling about national and personal incomes on this forum? I fail to see the relevance it has for atheists wanting to seize the pulpits.

Mind you, I am convinced Income and National Product are important, and thusly, I enjoy such comparisons as McDonalds and the Economist are making between the local prices of Big Macs [http://www.economist.com/markets/indicators/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_RGQJDDV]. But, please, for RD's sake not here in these columns.

10. As Religious Strife Grows, Europe's Atheists Seize Pulpit

Comment #31829 by John A. Michon on April 14, 2007 at 1:45 pm

GOD IN THE NETHERLANDS 2007

Since 1966 the Social and Cultural Planning Office of the Netherlands [http://www.scp.nl/english/] has sounded at regular intervals the religious feelings of the citizens of that country. Tomorrow 15 April, 2007 the newest report will be made public. The report can be summarized as follows : in the Netherlands belief in God continues to decrease.

Fewer and fewer people attend church and a small minority of citizens believes in a God and in an afterlife. For the 40 percent who still consider themselves believers, on the other hand, their faith is becoming a more significant aspect of their life. At least they acknowledge the role of the church as a 'moral anchor' and a 'source of meaning' in life.

The opinions of a representative sample of 1132 Dutch citizens show a consistent trend compared with the earlier inquiries. Comparing the results from 1966 with the newly collected outcomes, we see that
- atheism (there is no God) increases from 6% in 1966 to 14% in 2006;
- agnostics (existence N/A) increase from 16% in 1966 to 26% in 2006;
- "ietsisme" (something-ism) not measured previously, but 26% in 2006;
- afterlife decreased from 56% in 1966 to 40% in 2006;
- belief in 'heaven' has dropped to 21% in 2006.

Religion has become a 'life style' commodity: sometimes it is fun and sometimes it may offer support or a way of expressing one's feelings. Churches compare with hospitals: its good that we have them but in both cases you do better if you can stay away from them.

Attempts at restoring the old customs won't work. The spiritual -- including 'ietsism', that is the unspecified belief in some higher force - has become a highly personal aspect of life. The established churches will be tolerated if and only if they succeed in being socially meaningful, that is, service-oriented; provided they do so with a minimum of metaphysical ballyhoo.