1. Richard Dawkins' US Tour begins this week

Comment #139978 by AndyD on March 6, 2008 at 9:56 pm

Just saw him in Tempe as well! Very, very funny! His powerpoint was completely new as far as I can tell, though of course a lot of the old standards (like the girls labeled by their religion) were there. Almost 3,000 people were in attendance, and only about 8 questions were taken, so I wish there would have been more time available to be able to ask him a question. Of course, I was going to ask him a biology question, and not a religious one, since I agree with all of that already.

It was the first time I'd seen him in person. It was really weird after reading so many of his books and watching so many clips online. Afterwards, when I got to him to sign my copy of Unweaving the Rainbow, I barely had time to say a few sentences before getting shuffled along -- the downside of attracting such large audiences, I guess.

2. Richard Dawkins' US Tour begins this week

Comment #139477 by AndyD on March 6, 2008 at 12:31 am

I'll be attending tomorrow at ASU. Anybody have any questions they would like asked?

3. Sam Harris at AAI 07

Comment #84839 by AndyD on November 3, 2007 at 10:13 pm

Stryer: Having noted that I was skipping through several pages of messages, I was simply attempting to point out one of the very prominent criticisms of Sam's speech(not just here, but in general). Your quote aptly sums that up, regardless of what you may or may not have said somewhere before or after that. I'm not addressing you, I'm addressing two concepts: first the claim that using the term Atheist is always preferable or the best course of action in any sort of engagement; and second, the idea that Harris was somehow advocating doing away with gatherings to exchange ideas, or otherwise hiding under a rock, which I see as a misrepresentation of what the man actually had said.

I am uneager to pursue this any further with you, however, as your imperious tone of 'intellectual honesty' and the glib jabs you toss around, e.g. 'Having nearly dozed off reading your extraordinarily long and imprecise comment' and so forth, make me inclined to think you are some sort of troll, or else you just get off talking like an intellectual elitist oaf.

For brevity's sake, I shall reiterate: you can call together a convention to 'destroy bad ideas,' to quote Sam, of just about anything you want (this is virgin births, suicide terrorism, anti-evolution sentiments, stem cell research, and so forth) and nowhere in it does it have to be restricted by broad generalizations with the term atheism, and all of its baggage. If you want to write atheist on a census, or flaunt banners on your car, or tell people that you do not believe in the Judeo-Christian God (or any other one), then knock yourself out.

4. Sam Harris at AAI 07

Comment #84588 by AndyD on November 2, 2007 at 3:51 pm

Though many people have touched on it, and this thread is getting pretty long as it is, I think one point of opposition to Harris's speech needs to be seen for what it is and thoroughly annihilated.

Some people seem to be thinking that Harris is saying that nonbelievers should not express their disbelief, should have no recognizable way of sorting who believes what, and other such nonsense. This is a good summary of the argument: "My criticism of Harris was of the very heart of his submission. His proposal that we forgo any accessibly easy word (such as 'atheism') to define those who set their face against the onslaught of the faithful, in whatever guise, is an ideological blackhole into which his pisspoor alternative lexicon will drag those meant to stake their claim under a well-known banner well into its centre. Is there an argument to make? I say yes. Is there one to counter? I say yes again. Each point of view requires, I submit, a recognisable name, by which it can be approached and from which it can state its own claims. Harris's notion of relinquishing a name which may incidentally have acquired en route some unsavoury connotations is both defeatest, cowardly and downright insulting to those who wear their atheism as a badge of distinction. In other words, I think he's fucked up big time here."

And people throw in his quote about going 'under the radar,' and whatnot.

Well of course you don't throw out all banners, or give up on openly expressing ideas, or any other suck nonsense! You have misunderstood what Harris was saying! You keep the groupings, because of course it is the easiest way to identify positions and discuss them, but you do it on specific issues instead of one huge lump category.

If you think it is a foolish position for so many people to oppose stem cell research, you destroy the arguments (religious or otherwise) that people bring against it.

If you think there is very good reason to keep a separation between religion and government, then you advocate THAT POSITION. That is your banner. Each specific issue is all that you need, not one huge, catch-all lump. THIS is the point Harris is making.

You make specific claims or criticize others. That is all.

5. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Edd Doerr

Comment #58459 by AndyD on July 24, 2007 at 11:56 pm

The moderator seemed to be voicing many of the popular concerns with Christopher Hitchens -- popular, I should say, to those who are hearing him for the first or second time. It really often seems to be the case where someone will take the majority of an interview or discussion simply asking Sam Harris over and over and over, "Well certainly religion can't be the ONLY variable leading to violence in the middle east, can it?" or some moderator or debater will hammer Hitchens over and over asking: "Religion might poison some things, but it doesn't poison EVERYTHING, does it?" or will ask Richard, "Are ALL religious people deluded?" Of course Sam Harris won't say for a minute that it's the ONLY reason, just a reason, and that's his point. The same goes for the others: their points are being misunderstood.

I think it's these perceptions that turn people off from the rest of what somebody has to say. The moderator kept relentlessly trying to show exceptions to some of the arguments Christopher brought up (some religious people do good things and they will say that it's because of their faith!), but I think the entire point is that even if some people do not actually believe certain parts of a religion, other people who call themselves members of the same religion do, and in order to address everyone, it must be done point by point since religious people have such vastly different beliefs about everything. Whenever somebody says, "That's not my religion you're talking about!" it would do well for them to understand that, even if that may be the case, it is many others' religion.

So, in response to Richard's comments: for the newcomers I think the moderator's types of questions were necessary ones for Hitchens to clear up in order give those who were trying to figure his views out the peace of mind that he isn't a nonsensical nut shouting that religious people are crazy idiots who shouldn't be allowed to say anything, are deluded, and cause everyone's problems -- that would only turn his potential listeners off to the rest of what he is trying to say. But for those of us who already know this, it gets tiring listening to Hitchens, Dawkins, and Harris continually have to reaffirm this.

6. Is there an Artificial God?

Comment #57335 by AndyD on July 19, 2007 at 1:10 am

Great talk, I will have to read more of his work. I had read The Hitchhiker's Guide as a kid and been fascinated by it, but never before now had I understood Dawkins' admiration for Douglas Adams. Now I do. It is quite sad indeed to have lost him; this man is a gem.

7. Charles Darwin - Legacy

Comment #55456 by AndyD on July 11, 2007 at 7:05 am

::laugh:: at Dawkins: "Hitler really gave eugenics a bad rep," unintentionally implying that eugenics isn't all bad. hahahahaha

The salt analogy made a lot of sense to me. I think Monkey2 is out-of-hand rejecting it because of the word 'God' thrown in there. Stephen Hawking uses it in his physics books and is palpably nonreligious, so I wouldn't be so quick to recoil whenever anyone invokes religion -- it's a habit. It seemed like he was saying that countless variables and factors build up between the many species co-evolving until they hit a breaking point and 'avalanche' down the side. That's no more chaotic than the actual avalanches in the salt, which happen for very specific reasons. The point, as I take it, is that it's very complex, and the large changes result from the buildup of numerous smaller ones.

Logical, perhaps you might want to elaborate how all of society is built on the male model of competition. It doesn't seem like it to me...

I also think it was good to see John Maynard Smith again. He will be missed.

Great videos, though I also think a bit better job could have been done choosing a title, or else making it more clear how most of the eugenics theories are nonsequiturs from what evolution and natural selection really are.

8. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #52105 by AndyD on June 26, 2007 at 6:53 am

This is more of a general comment brought on by the following remark: "Bonzai, out of pure interest, have you actually read Atlas Shrugged? And if so, can you provide a rational refutation it?

Of course, you won't be able to. I spent a year trying to find a refutation. Other people have spent lifetimes trying. And I suspect that your hysterical dismissal of Ayn Rand as a 'hack' is the same in essence as the hysterical dismissal of many religious people when confronted with the lunacy of their beliefs."

Declaring something irrational and thus below you seems to be the demeaning retort of choice for the rationialist mindset championed by atheists. I, of course, am an atheist, great advocate of Dawkins' work, avid reader here, denouncer of faith, and lover of science and reason. Whether religious or not, however, arrogance is not a virtue. It's one of the most irritating habbits of bible-quoting, know-it-alls who still think the earth is 6,000 years old. People might be misled, but their position is almost always understandable, and ad hominem insults are never serious ways of discussing anything.

(they are good for humor sometimes though :D, and humor is often illuminating, as is ridicule, sarcasm, and satire)

9. Christopher Hitchens Is a Treasure

Comment #43239 by AndyD on May 21, 2007 at 2:15 am

I was going to copy in that exact same segment, BT Murtagh, and say the exact same thing. Beat me to the punch.

He seems to call out universals and somehow assume that just because it is desirable to have widespread solidarity and compassion, it necessarily must come from the supernatural and not the natural. As usual, I think a Sam Harris paraphrase fits best: all of this is unnecessary! The feelings of love and beauty and compassion come from within humans, not from without.

10. Unintelligent Design

Comment #39898 by AndyD on May 12, 2007 at 8:16 am

"While I do agree that science does not give us morals, I think the proper place for discussion of morals is philosophy and literature (and history too)."

Popularly science does not give morals. Morals existed long before any mainstream science. I am not going to say that science is all one needs to know to have morals. However, just about all of our morals arose by means which science can describe -- that is to say, our evolution. I think most people's morals would benefit from understanding certain points about 'the natural world and it's scientifically discovered characteristics and history' (I don't know why people always lump so much under the term 'science,' it leads to confusion). The most blatantly obvious and universal part of our existence, which as Sam Harris constantly mentions has been distilled in philosophies such as the Golden Rule, is that other people feel like we do. This is a scientific statement. Understanding that suffering is ubiquitous is a cause for not only not causing it in other humans, but also for displaying the same empathy towards anything else capable of suffering. This idea has long led to efforts to prevent harm to creatures other than humans, such as Gorillas, who are capable of sadness, emotional distress, and other forms of suffering other than the purely physical.

That is only a surface-level, general way that science (though again, I would call it an understanding of the natural world and it's scientifically-determined characteristics and history) can, pretty much always has, and MUST aid in our view of morals. There is also moral wisdom to be gained from understanding how all species evolved, understanding our aggressive, territorial, and us vs. them tendencies and doing our best to diminish them whenever they are harmful to others, and so forth. It is not the only way to come up with some pretty good morals, and like other methods its data can be misinterpreted pretty badly, but to say that they are separate is completely bunk. I think scientific knowledge is a great complement to morals. See Jack Rawlinson's response for more ways.

11. The Encyclopedia of Life

Comment #39276 by AndyD on May 10, 2007 at 8:49 am

Everyone support this. Watch E. O. Wilson's TED Talks video if you haven't. His appreciation and love of life and all its mysteries should be an inspiration to everyone.

12. Christopher Hitchens and Al Sharpton: A Debate God Is Not Great

Comment #39270 by AndyD on May 10, 2007 at 8:44 am

Sharpton seems simply to be unable to see how his very core beliefs about the world, how people should act, what is good, and what is bad could exist without God. It appears for this reason and this reason alone that he clings onto the existence of God, for his abstract concept of God justifies his position. Ironically, Sharpton professes many beliefs contrary to the majority of the religious: he literally sculpted his own beliefs of right or wrong free from religion and invoked religion to justify them. All he needs to see is that his ability to choose between moral precepts is available to humans, and contained within them, is a product of our very special case of evolution and does not require a belief in anything supernatural.

A good Sam Harris quote that sums this up (and is one of my favorites):

"Finally, let me say that there is something tragically unnecessary about all of this. I do not doubt the consolations you get from your faith. But faith is like a pickpocket who loans you your own money on generous terms. Your resultant feelings of gratitude are perfectly understandable, but misplaced. You are the source of the love that you attribute to Jesus (how else can you feel it?). Realizing this, what need is there to feel certain about ancient miracles?"
- Sam Harris

13. Kennedy lectures on challenges facing K-12 science education

Comment #35515 by AndyD on April 27, 2007 at 12:22 pm

@ Comment #35399 by Rtambree on April 27, 2007 at 4:05 am
"Economics is a pseudo-science. It's based on false assumptions (humans as rational utility maximising entities)."

Admittedly there have been quite a few miserably incorrect economists, many of whom have grasped onto ideals to perfect a society (communism among others). However, this is an injurious claim to a field which has had tremendous success today solving many problems, and has the potential to answer many more.

It is an incorrect characterization to say that economics has had all of these pitfalls but 'regular science' has not. For example, Lamarckian evolution which said that characteristics were inherited (strength, wit, etc). The entire rise of Social Darwinism. Geocentrism. The age of the Earth (6000, 200000, 100000, 1000000000). Physics mechanics prior to Einstein and quantum. Just like science has thrown out theories which do not hold and added onto existing theories to provide a fuller explanation, so has economics.

Economics, while I will definitely agree is of a slightly different nature than something like chemistry, also has a huge amount of similarities. Also, a simple understanding of economics on behalf of our present decision makers could solve a plethora of the world's hunger and environmental problems. A good intro book into economics and an insight into many of its potential uses is Naked Economics by Charles Wheelan. It is written assuming almost no prior economics knowledge and is absolutely fascinating.

So you are correct in saying that general 'grand schemes' fail, but they fail in every subject, and it is simply ill-informed for you to say that economics is a pseudo-science or imply that it has no value (in fact, it has ENORMOUS value).

14. Richard Dawkins interviews the Bishop of Oxford

Comment #33648 by AndyD on April 20, 2007 at 9:50 pm

Hmm, rather than think he's further allowing people to hold absurd beliefs and increasing the chasm, I think he's doing more to bridge it.

Holding such a plastic view on religion's impact in life helps lessen it's power, and hopefully one day once people see that the inner beauty, spiritual fulfillment, wonder, mystery, or whatever the heck people want to call the emotion produced that is generally attached to religion, can be had without it, there will be no more need for it.

If all people could argue like Dawkins and the Bishop, I think not only religious debate but debate in general would hugely benefited.

15. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #32977 by AndyD on April 18, 2007 at 10:49 pm

Superb writing and thoughts from both sides. I'm on Sam's side though, and I must commend him again on some of the most compelling arguments I have heard on understanding religion.

"Finally, let me say that there is something tragically unnecessary about all of this. I do not doubt the consolations you get from your faith. But faith is like a pickpocket who loans you your own money on generous terms. Your resultant feelings of gratitude are perfectly understandable, but misplaced. You are the source of the love that you attribute to Jesus (how else can you feel it?). Realizing this, what need is there to feel certain about ancient miracles?"

Simply excellent.

16. Sex, Love, and SSRIs

Comment #31234 by AndyD on April 11, 2007 at 4:41 pm

"However, I guess I'm a lucky person, like most people I've suffered sadness but have no idea what it means to be depressed."

Can anyone describe what it is meant by 'being depressed?' I feel much like Yorker seems to: I've been sad, I've been bored, I've been confused, I've had anxiety, and I've been afraid, just like I'd imagine everyone else has. I've never ever known what people mean when they mention being clinically depressed, or what this business with using drugs to treat it is.

I apologize for my ignorance, but while I've read about it in a million places I've never gotten an actual description of how it is actually different from normal sad human emotions.

17. E.O. Wilson Accepts his 2007 TED Prize

Comment #30524 by AndyD on April 8, 2007 at 11:45 am

What a fascinating man! I've not read his works as extensively as Dawkins', but after the few things I've seen from E. O. Wilson recently, I think I will be. These people have fostered my love for biology.

(Thanks for the Watson and Wilson google video suggestion, by the way, it was great)

18. Militant atheists: too clever for their own good

Comment #30229 by AndyD on April 7, 2007 at 9:15 am

Comment #30167 by Yorker:

"My grandmother wasn't religious, but I have strong childhood memories of her attending the local church whist drive every Wednesday evening, sometimes she took me with her to give my mother a break. When I grew up I asked her about it, she replied that it was just for the company, the church aspect was purely incidental."

My best friend's mother is the same way, as were both my parents growing up. Emile Durkheim, a sociologist during the early 1900s, claimed that religion was simply the worship of society. While perhaps not going that far, religion does not exist without society (think of a person on a desert island).