1. Back from the grave

Comment #250375 by etny on September 19, 2008 at 3:01 pm

Good thing that such a large scale experiment is finally undertaken. Skeptics should warmly welcome and even support this effort. One can't say that the questions of "God" and "Religion" are amenable to scientific inquiry and be dismissive of any serious scientific endeavor on the subject.

2. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107751 by etny on January 5, 2008 at 6:53 am

Nice (PDF) article by Sam about Buddhism entitled:
"Killing the Buddha"

http://www.samharris.org/media/killing-the-buddha.pdf

"There is much more to be discovered
about the nature of the human mind. In
particular, there is much more for us to
understand about how the mind can transform
itself from a mere reservoir of greed,
hatred, and delusion into an instrument
of wisdom and compassion. Students of
the Buddha are very well placed to further
our understanding on this front, but the
religion of Buddhism currently stands in
our way"

I stand corrected.

3. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107611 by etny on January 4, 2008 at 8:19 pm

@aznxscorpion517
Thanks for your comment. I hope I am wrong about Sam, but with the mumbo often comes the jumbo.
And the mumbo sounds overly Buddhist to me.

4. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107607 by etny on January 4, 2008 at 8:14 pm

It would not make most of his criticism of religions any less valid. But he should still be honest and open about his own spiritual path and affiliations. I'm surprised that you should think otherwise.
Sam goes further than simply criticizing religion. He sets forth his own definition of spirituality. Under the guise of science and reason, some of his own biases and beliefs are coming out. Why should spirituality be all about happiness? That sounds plain silly to me.
I like the rational Sam. The buddhist Sam does not sway or impress me one bit. I just hope that others are aware that there are two sides to Sam.

5. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107600 by etny on January 4, 2008 at 7:57 pm

It matters. Simple question of honesty. Hitch knows very well that Harris is a closet Buddhist, and he tries to refrain from exposing him. He has succeeded so far, but it will come out at some point.
Once you engage on a spiritual path, once you have a teacher, you are bound to sacrifice part of your freedom and judgement. Bias creeps in. That's a tradeoff.
When you speak out publicly about religion and spirituality, and when you loudly denounce religious hypocrisy, the least you should do is be totally open and honest about where you stand. C'mon Sam, come out of the closet.

6. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107589 by etny on January 4, 2008 at 7:39 pm

Sam is a closet Buddhist. That's increasingly obvious. His emphasis on happiness, compassion, avoidance of suffering, his reverence for "meditating for one year in a cave" speak volume. He sounds like the Dalai Lama ("The Art of Happiness" anyone?).
It's a little hypocritical on his part not to be coming out more frankly about this. I bet he follows a Buddhist "teacher" or master. Probably a Tibetan one.
C'mon, Sam, lay out your not-so-well hidden agenda. I don't care what you do with your life, but be honest about it.

7. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #99591 by etny on December 17, 2007 at 6:27 am

Pleasant to watch, but ultimately nothing very interesting or novel came out of it. The discussion would have been far more fruitful without Hitch in the mix. Too much ego, politics, and too little science on Hitch's part (and what a silly and egotistical point: "I want religions to survive so I can have someone to argue against"). And please, enough of the "4 Horsemen" media bull! Enough with the adoration! Aside from the annoying groupie "wow" factor, this was a very average and ordinary conversation, at best.

8. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #96665 by etny on December 10, 2007 at 8:05 pm

Atheism does not make a man good or bad. Nor does religiosity. These are childish views. You have murderous fanatics and "Saints" in both camps. During the second world war, some priests in France hid Jewish children (my father amongst them), while others aided the Nazis. Communists "resistants" were tortured to death and did not speak. As were some Christians. Religiosity can be the refuge of darkened hearts, so can atheism. This is a false and annoying debate. You can pick and chose in the scriptures to justify or reinforce your actions and frame of mind. You can also rationalize almost any system of thought or behavior without opening a book. Believers or not, we are all humans with the same potential for darkness and light. There is an unfortunate confusion between the legitimate scrutiny of religious claims and texts, and the arrogant bashing of anyone who holds a religious belief. And the wholly unscientific and highly emotional claims about the atheist vs. religious "body count" are drowning out the real and interesting debate.

9. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #95261 by etny on December 7, 2007 at 6:50 pm

Oh my! Playing semantics? Substitute vice for sin ("the vice of sexual jealousy") and its opposite ("rising above" it), whatever name you want to call it. Now what?

10. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #95084 by etny on December 7, 2007 at 10:26 am

Yeah, yeah...
Of course, we will all draw our own conclusions. But IMHO, someone who explains that sexual jealousy is a sin while sex without love and/or polyamori are a virtue, must have some personal interest in the question, well beyond "pure intellect", don't you think?
And we seldom see such emotion, nastiness, and so little reason in Dawkin's texts. Trust me, it's not his brain doing the talking.
As for my experiences with cults, I had one, eons ago. No sex deviance, but a lot of BS, as I you might imagine.
This is one reason, among others (life experience, etc), why I have become quite sensitive and receptive to the type of BS-rationalizations Dawkins has just engaged in.
He may be fooling himself, and he may even be fooling you. But he ain't fooling me on that one.

11. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #95036 by etny on December 7, 2007 at 7:59 am

I think this part explains the whole thing away:
Dawkins quotes Allen:
"Sex without love is an empty experience, but as empty experiences go it's one of the best."
Dawkins is simply telling us that he longs for great sexual encounters. The "higher plain of love" and "deeply love more than one person" arguments are just there to sanitize the whole issue. And by the way, why should the "plane of love" be any higher than the "plane of sex"? If Dawkins thought this through with his second favorite organ (- the brain, as per Allen's definition-), he might even conclude that abstinence or platonic love are even higher than lust and love+sex. Why stop on the way?
Like others have astutely said, this whole mumbo-jumbo tells us more about Dawkin's own state of "mind" than anything else. He's obviously in need of some sexual diversity, but because he is a man of reason, he has come up with a whole twisted edifice to rationalize his impulses. And that's all too human. I just wonder why he felt so compelled to share it with the world. Is he that blind to his own self-deceptions? Or so full of himself that he will not look at his weaknesses in the eye.
Yep. Definitely a bad a case of arrogant, lustful, self-deception. Richard's Delusion.

12. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #94839 by etny on December 6, 2007 at 6:54 pm

OK, enough with twisted and angry ethics.
Back to Dawkins-quality stuff:
"University of Queensland research has found the "missing link" in the evolution of the eye."
http://www.physorg.com/news115919015.html

13. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #94085 by etny on December 4, 2007 at 6:21 pm

Thanks steve99 for your insight, but you've missed the important point.
"Morality" is the next challenge for secularists (see Beyond Belief 2), and it's off to a pretty poor start. See ya around.

14. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #93963 by etny on December 4, 2007 at 1:52 pm

It hit a lot of people pretty hard. Read the posts. I think I've explained enough why it hit me. The whole thing really sounds like a Woody Allen joke, except that Dawkins is being damn serious, and pretty sanguine and emotional about it too. He should discuss these rather personal issues with his friends (and/or his shrink). Again, it feels like a bad case of rationalization, cooked up with all he could use (evolution, sordid TV-ized affairs, etc, etc.). And btw, I'm not condemning him for having these thoughts. Like the Beatles said "We're all doing what we can"... I just find them troubling.

15. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #93947 by etny on December 4, 2007 at 1:34 pm

I know full well that it is (was) an issue (now happily dealt with). But am I the only one here?

16. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #93931 by etny on December 4, 2007 at 1:22 pm

steve99:
First: Dakwins is not "questioning politely" (and I have no problem with that). They don't call him "Darwin's Rotweiller" for nothing. He has no problem calling a spade a spade, and I have no problem calling his rant on jealousy "utter crap" (I explained why).

Second: I have somehow established an emotional and intellectual bond-at-a-distance with Dawkins. And I'm quite certain that many others have, for many good reasons. Why are some on this board dismayed, disappointed by what he wrote? Or defending it so adamantly? There is undeniably an emotional component to this. We're seldom disappointed by the words of people we don't care about... because we just don't care. Also, we may feel that somehow, we're on the same team, aren't we? And therefore in danger of adopting a "group mentality", even if it's via virtual means of communication. Group dynamics are groups dynamics that affect humans, and we are humans, aren't we? So we have to be aware of this, and not let that blur our judgment. We should not let our admiration for Dawkins, his intellectual brilliance, the "liberating" job he has recently done on religion, and his perceived qualities and charm as an individual influence our own thought more than it ought to. And no one should ever become an unquestioning groupie or disciple of "the Master". Again, I'm not blaming Dawkins for any of this. All this might seem self-evident for you, but if these few words even resonate with a single reader, then it's not for naught.

Third: The obvious question that is asked to those who reject religion and God, and more specifically, those who are the poster-boys of an "atheist" insurrection, is the question of morality. I'm sure that you've heard it a thousand times. This is where Dawkin's take is most problematic and feels like a double-betrayal. The first betrayal is perhaps silly and personal, I've just described it. The second one, is (I feel) a betrayal toward the general cause of secularism. Think about that: The most prominent figure of this powerful "new-atheist" movement (like it or not, that's how it's perceived), who very often talks about morality, has just declared sexual jealousy a vice and polyamori a virtue. Do I really need to explain why this is potentially a huge problem? Can we blame it on Richard? Don't know. Makes no difference anyway. My only hope is that he will stop venturing publicly and in such a thoughtless way into the field of ethics and morality.

There are other issues, still, but I've ranted on enough for now.

17. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #93887 by etny on December 4, 2007 at 11:56 am

Steve99:
Well then, you don't know much about human nature, I'm sorry to report that many (perhaps most) people have "cultish minds" (of course, there are degrees of cultishness). People will often idealize the very person who tells them to rise up and burn their idols. Psychology 101, my scientist-genius-arrogant friend. Religion 101.
Now let's see if you can rise above your contempt (is that a vice?) and think about that.

18. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #93876 by etny on December 4, 2007 at 11:18 am

steve99,
Your are, of course, entitled to your view about my "ranting nonsense". Some disagree, as you might have read. In any case, your contempt speaks for itself.

19. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #93868 by etny on December 4, 2007 at 11:01 am

Somehow I think this article is a turning point. It has been for me, anyway, in my somewhat naive idealization of Dawkins, and I am thankful for this debate. We'll see if and how it resonates beyond this board. The emerging "Dawkinian AKA New-Atheists" religion, with it's Great Priests, its devoted followers, its hardly repressed contempt for dissenting views, etc... and now... it's new twisted morality freshly descended from the top, has just shot itself in the foot. All is well.
Jameshg, please give my regards to Lalla.

20. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #93740 by etny on December 4, 2007 at 4:30 am

"Honey", she started timidly, "I don't like it when you joke with Jenny about sex... and I feel uncomfortable when you look at her so intensely... and when you put your arm around her.. You know she's my best friend.. I really wonder what her husband feels! Could you please stop this?"
"Honey, for once, why can't you rise above your vice!" he grumbled, barely taking his eyes of "The God Delusion".
We have another delusion on our hands, folks, and this time, it's Richard's own.

21. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #93725 by etny on December 4, 2007 at 3:14 am

"Just as we rise above nature when we spend time writing a book or a symphony rather than devoting our time to sowing our selfish genes and fighting our rivals, so mightn't we rise above nature when tempted by the vice of sexual jealousy?"
"THE VICE OF SEXUAL JEALOUSY"!
Well done, Richard! Abracadabra, and the vice is now... sexual jealousy!!! YESSSS!!!!
HILARIOUS!!!!
Ladies, beware Guru Dawkins!
If Woody Allen were to utter such nonsense, it would be out of pure wit and second degree! With the keen awareness that it's a huge (and potentially disgusting) rationalization!
But no Downunder, RD is not "having-us-on". He is dead serious!
May I be so bold as to ask you, dear Richard, and the know-it-all on this board, how you define vice and virtue?
If that's secular morality, then Pat Robertson is going to have a field day!
I'm disappointed and disgusted. RD has lost a good deal of my respect on this one. I hope brother Dennett brings him back to his senses.

22. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #93501 by etny on December 3, 2007 at 9:47 am

Polydactyl:
Jealousy (except when it's out of whack) may have to do with the feeling of betrayal, of breach of trust.
It's not merely about "animalistic desires of exclusive possession..." What a caricature!
It is, actually, something very healthy, like an "alarm bell".
But again, this is not the point. I'm glad to see that others, such as poppythinks and the third man are as dumbfounded as I am.

23. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #93419 by etny on December 3, 2007 at 6:00 am

@Polydactyl
Again, this is not about broken promises. You are missing and/or ignoring the point.
Let me ask you this:
Why should resisting one's jealousy be any "higher" or more noble and less animalistic that resisting one's sexual urges?!
Why should we rise above our jealousy and not our sexual urges?
Definitely hilarious, and quite troublesome.

24. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #93399 by etny on December 3, 2007 at 4:50 am

@Polydactyl
Again, you are missing the point. This is not about lifelong fidelity. Divorce has been around for a while, my friend.
This is about polyamori, can't you read?!
This is not only hillarious, but potentially very detrimental to the secularist cause. Please, Richard, write your book for children, which I am certain, will be consciousness-raising, and live the sexual life you so evidently long for. But please, please, keep your rationalizations to yourself.

25. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #93394 by etny on December 3, 2007 at 4:24 am

@Mat,
It's interesting how everyone focuses on different aspects of Richard's text. To me, it's not about faithfulness, or whose body belongs to whom.
Richard writes: "Why should you deny your loved one the pleasure of sexual encounters with others, if he or she is that way inclined?"
Also meaning: why should I deny myself (or why should my spouse deny me) the pleasure of sexual encounters with others, if I am that way inclined?"
And the rationalization, please? "Sexual jealousy is part of our nature, and we must rise above our nature".
Man, a Californian Guru couldn't dream up a better sales pitch! This is not utter crap, this is hillarious crap. I'm really surprised so many people on this blog are falling for it. Unless there is some sort of Dawkins cult-like mentality. The master can never be wrong, everything he says or writes is deep and true, etc... Not for me, thank you very much.
What's next... the "Dawkins-Rise-Above-your-Nature workshops"?
Hillarious!

26. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #93384 by etny on December 3, 2007 at 3:03 am

@Beth,
You are a bit patronizing ("you need to calm down") toward Louise who has every right to be offended by Richard's text.
And you are also deliberately sanitizing the points he is making. I wonder why. Are we witnessing the emergence of an unconditional, unquestioning Dawkins-cult-like mentality?
Like it or not, he is indeed calling into question monoamory (through the prism of jealousy) as if we needed to rise above it. And declaring his admiration for "those rare free spirits confident enough to rise above jealousy, stop fretting about who is "cheating on" whom, and tell the green-eyed monster to go jump in the lake?"
There are many of those "free spirits" in new-ageish cults on the West Coast who will tell their followers that they must "rise above their jealousy, and open up to new possibilities...", and "to rise above such Bourgeois sentiments as fidelity and jealousy" was an ideal for true communists in their prime.
Many here simply didn't expect such utter crap from Richard.

27. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #93178 by etny on December 2, 2007 at 11:29 am

@Logician,
I have no need to explain, justify or defend how I educate my daughters. We are all trying to do what we believe is right, and kids do need to be educated and taught some values. But ultimately, they are and will be their own person. I certainly was not aware that this would tap into painful emotions for you. And I am sorry for what happened to your daughter. The ignorant fascistic self-righteous bigotry that exists across the US is humanity at its worst. That's why it's so thrilling to see Dawkins and others take them on so brilliantly. Personally, I'm not in favor of generalized polyamory. I don't see that as "humans rising above their nature". But there are far more important things on which to focus and again, I might write back in a few months in praise of polyamory. Who knows what life has in store for us...
Again, the only reason I brought "children's education" in the picture, is to question whether Richard had really thought this through and because he has already published a lengthy and beautiful letter that he wrote to his daughter, which explains his outlook on life. What he tells his daughter in private and how he educates her is none of my business.

28. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #93107 by etny on December 2, 2007 at 8:05 am

@Beth,
I was referring to your statement:
" Ah, but there's the rub! It is not a right or wrong value judgment. It can't be, and the sooner that we dispose of the myth that there are moral absolutes the better."
By humility, I meant humility toward the absoluteness and solidity of one's own assumptions, and did not mean to say you are an arrogant person. Perhaps humility is not the right word. Let's say, circumspection. And where have I claimed to have any special insight into the absolutes of morality?
Perhaps we can all agree on this one: bigotry is absolutely morally reprehensible.Is that an absolute?

29. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #93098 by etny on December 2, 2007 at 7:42 am

@notsobad

You are right, I got carried away.
Strike out "Faithfulness". One can be a very faithful polyamorous;) The other issues remain, however.

I had not realized it, but Richard also touches upon polyamory in the God Delusion:

" Rather than the fanatically monogamous devotion to which we are susceptible, some sort of 'polyamory' is on the face of it more rational. (Polyamory is the belief that one can simultaneously love several members of the opposite sex, just as one can love more than one wine, composer, book or sport.) We happily accept that we can love more than one child, parent, sibling, teacher, friend or pet. When you think of it like that, isn't the total exclusiveness that we expect of spousal love positively weird?"

So there is definitely a train of thought, there.

30. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #92930 by etny on December 1, 2007 at 7:21 pm

@Beth,
I don't disagree with most of what you are saying. But I disagree with Dawkin's take. And I don't want people to associate atheism or agnosticism with his specific point of view. As they will. In truth, Dawkins has no greater authority to speak about morals than anyone else. He is, of course, entitled to his opinions. But he is a personality with some prestige. And he is beginning to venture publicly into a field in which he has no more credibility than the next guy, really. As one of my good friend, a surgeon pediatrician who absolutely devoured "the selfish Gene" was wondering tonight, why is Dawkins, a brilliant scientist, wasting his precious brain cells on this religious debate? I explained that in my opinion, it was a necessary resistance to a wave of obscurantism and faith-driven wars. And indeed, Dawkins has done an outstanding and salutary job. But she had a point. Beyond that and because of his position, I don't see much value for him and for secularists in his getting publicly into the nuances of what is morally right or wrong (although it is a fascinating question). All this said with a great deal of admiration and affection-at-a-distance for him.
As for your take on "there is no absolute right or wrong value judgment", something in me rebels against this view, or "moral relativism". I'm not sure why. But I hope you realize that your statement above is merely your own belief. So perhaps a little humility is called for.

@Logician,
Your pseudo should be "Emotician". I see far more emotions in your responses than logic. I'll leave it at that.

(Pardon my sometimes quirky English, but I am not a native, and I can't tell you how frustrating it is not to be able to express oneself as one could).

31. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #92739 by etny on December 1, 2007 at 11:24 am

@Logician,
My daughters are 10 and 7, so we are not really on the same boat at this point. How other people raise their children is none of my business (I'll refrain from passing judgment like you did). Nor would I condemn or judge my daughters, or love them any less, if when they come of age, they were to choose a lifestyle of which I disapprove at this point. But I will raise them, I hope, with a sense of moral rectitude, that includes notions such as faithfulness and "monoandry" (then, happens what may), which Richard seems to want to dispose of. Has he not done so himself with his daughter? And would he not do so today? That's a question I'm interested in. Not because I like peering into other people's private lives, but because I'm interested in Richard's thought. And I'm not sure that he has really thought the issue through fully. It also raises the more general question of atheism and morality. If there is no "absolute" morality, what moral codes can we agree upon? And on what grounds? These are not trivial questions and they will have to be adressed. Anyway, these are some of my core values, I make no apologies for them, and I will defend them within my family against the new "Dawkins style" moral relativism (Hahaha..). But hey, who knows what society will be like in 2100...

32. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #92694 by etny on December 1, 2007 at 8:43 am

@Corylus
The question is not daughters or sons. I happen to have two daughters. Don't try to obfuscate my questions by steering the debate toward issues of gender.
As for your reprimands on my impertinence, again, your are evading the question and totally missing the point. If I could ask the very same questions of Richard in person and/or in public, believe me, I would. And I'm not sure that we would be as offended and prudish as you are pretending to be.
Let's leave the abstractions aside and get real. What are our values? If you have children, you must know that a very good way of judging where one truly stands on moral and other issues, is to think about what we truly wish for them.

@ Incredulous:
We all have different experiences with regards to what Richard means for us. I can affirm to you that for many people, he has been a sort of "liberator". Especially in the USA. I am sure that he is keenly aware of it. Why do you think his book has sold millions?! It's not a Harry Potter story. There's something much deeper. Of course, no Christ-like figure, as you caricatured.

33. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #92663 by etny on December 1, 2007 at 5:11 am

Well, perhaps this is all because for some people, Richard has become some kind of "God", a brilliant, highly honest and ethical man, speaking truth to powerful nonsense... but of course, the "God" part is a delusion;) When someone speaks to you and for you in so many ways, enlightens you, "raises your consciousness" on important issues, you establish an emotional bond with that person, even without knowing him personally. There is something highly emotional to the whole "new atheists" (like the expression or not) endeavor. It's far from merely intellectual. And so when your "liberator", in a way, goes down a path that offends your own values, it creates a dissonance and a sense of loss.
For me, if Dawkins goes down the path of deconstructing deeply held moral values or codes, we may very well find ourselves on opposing sides of the argument. If Dawkins, as he in a way preaches (for himself, but he is no longer a private person), takes on monogamy and monoandry, he will no longer speak for me, I will lose some of my respect for him, and "my kind of" secularists will have lost one of their best advocates. This has nothing to do with "a God or no God" issue.

Dear Richard, if you want to have several relationships at once, by all means, do so. But don't try to justify it by calling it "rising above one's own nature" (jealousy is a sideshow in your argument). As someone else said, this feels like a mega-rationalization.

Dear Richard, you have a daughter, I have two. Would you really like or be absolutely indifferent to your daughter having several (and what would the maximum number be? and why not all of them happily in the same bed? Where are the limits?) simultaneous relationships throughout her life? And if this revulsed you in a way, would you really want to "rise above that revulsion"? I would really like to have your answer to these questions.

34. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #92489 by etny on November 30, 2007 at 3:56 pm

One thing Richard certainly can't be faulted for, among other outstanding qualities, is his sincerity. But sometimes, sincerity becomes naïveté. Given Richard's role as the leader of the "new atheists" movement or "brights", and their rallying cry: "Man has no need for a God or Divine rules to behave ethically", his latest musings seems rather naive and potentially detrimental to the cause. This will be a sure homerun for his detractors.
Aside from this, they do, however, raise a key question that atheists, once medieval religion has been thoroughly deconstructed, will have to address: On what standards can "a godless morality" be erected, or what will be the basis for a secular moral code? Not so easy. I, for one (as I wrote earlier), disagree with Richard's fondness for "manygamy". So where do secularists go from here? How do they build this new edifice?

35. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #92186 by etny on November 30, 2007 at 2:57 am

Dear Richard,
"I am not advocating a promiscuously swinging lifestyle"
But surely, you must be aware that there are "moral implications" to your text and that you have just handed your religious critics the perfect weapon against you.
Let me quote you again, as some surely will:
"Why is erotic love the one exception that everybody instantly acknowledges without even thinking about it? Why can a woman not love two men at the same time, in their different ways? And why should the two - or their wives -- begrudge her this? [...] And why don't we all admire - as I increasingly do -- those rare free spirits confident enough to rise above jealousy, stop fretting about who is "cheating on" whom, and tell the green-eyed monster to go jump in the lake?"
Frankly, I don't understand why you are going there. IMHO, this is a strategic mistake at this juncture. You are, in a way, advocating the end of monogamy or mono-sexual-relationship, as a state of "brightness", of elevated consciousness. Where your love and/or lust take you, you shall go, and if your wife also goes there, please let her be and fight back this feeling of jealousy and disgust: it's a lowly animal thing.
Many New-Age cults have already been there. Communism also sought to abolish such Bourgeois feelings as "jealousy" and sexual exclusivity. This is nothing new.
Aside from the "strategic" aspects, and for reasons that have nothing to do with mere jealousy, I wholly disagree with you on this point. I do not want a world in which it will be absolutely natural for my daughter or son to have multiple lovers simultaneously, all one big happy family. I deeply respect and love the value and beauty of fidelity and monogamy (however long it may last), this attempt at unity through the peaks and valleys of life. Part of what makes a man, and what makes a man grow, as you well know, is his ability to become aware of, understand, and sometimes counter his instincts and desires. You are implying that "jealousy" is a lowly instinct. This may well be. But that does not mean that polygamy and the rest are any different: our giving in to these instincts. You are just providing the rationalization for it.
In short and with all due respect, I think that you have entered the battlefield of core ethics and morality in a rather clumsy way, and IMHO, you have picked the wrong battle, "one bright too far".

36. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #91923 by etny on November 29, 2007 at 2:55 pm

Well here we have it: RD has just given ammunition to those who believe that there can be no morality without a God. And that science cannot tell us how we should live our lives. That secularism leads to decadence. Believe me, we are going to get an earful following this little article. This article opens a great big can of worms. Actually, the biggest of all.

37. 'Secular Believers'

Comment #89800 by etny on November 21, 2007 at 6:34 pm

McGrath utters the most despicable worlds, in passing: he says to the interviewer that "he hopes, for his sake that he is right" (not to believe in God).
Hopes "for his sake?"
Here we have it. The vengeful God, lurking in the background, McGrath's fear-based belief, and this underlying thought that whoever does not believe in God (though Christ, I suppose) will burn in hell.
McGrath should be ashamed of himself. Under a thin veil of tolerance and intellectualism, those who pay attention can see (as in these few words) the barbaric medieval thought that animates this man and many "born again" christians. McGrath does not deserve any respect and diplomacy. He is a man with a dangerous thought. A despicable, judgmental, self-righteous fool. I hope that Rich or Hitch can really nail him one of these days, and expose him for what he is. And I know many Christians who would be just as disgusted as I am.

38. Response to Theodore Dalrymple

Comment #85255 by etny on November 5, 2007 at 11:16 am

All this is quite simple. It has nothing to do with reasoned arguments, and the "intemperate" tone explains it away: it's all about JEALOUSY. Dalrymple and many others are absolutely gutted that Harris, Dawkins & Hitch are selling so many books and making so much money. Of course, Sam can't really bring this up, but I'm sure he knows better. So do we.

39. Enemies of Reason

Comment #64975 by etny on August 22, 2007 at 2:21 pm

Re: Steven Mading
The problem is that Deepak makes a lot more sense that the medieval religious leaders he often appears with on Larry King and the likes! In their presence, he suddenly sounds like a progressive, tolerant, modernist individual.
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed is king... And boy does he know it and exploits it shamelessly.

40. Enemies of Reason

Comment #64958 by etny on August 22, 2007 at 1:45 pm

Thank you, RD, for exposing, not the king of mambo, but the king of mumbo: our friend Deepak. I read one of his books a while back, in which he mixed quantum physics and reptilian brain with the vista of French cook. Back then already, the overwhelming thought that came to my mind was: "What a bunch of mumbo-jumbo".
That's his trick, which he performs in this 1 minute interview, without missing a beat... and when cornered, retreats behind the pitiful "this is all a metaphor". Priceless!

41. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #63533 by etny on August 14, 2007 at 5:55 pm

For frustrated US residents, like myself, here is a link to the actual program.
Powerful, as always.
Enjoy!
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8669488783707640763&q=enemies+of+reason&pr=goog-sl

42. Christopher Hitchens and David Allen White discuss the impact of Christianity on Western Civilization

Comment #63116 by etny on August 13, 2007 at 6:28 am

DAW says (about unbaptized kids going to limbo):
"What is very interesting is that that debate is currently going on in Catholic circles, because as you well know, there have been some recent pronouncements about limbo. They have not been definitive, but it is…you may find it crazy that this is being debated right now. I find it actually very interesting".
Interesting?! Not definitive? Debated?
What a lame statement regarding one of the most revolting concepts in the whole Catholic dogma.
This alone, eclipses the rest of the babble, and the pseudo-literary arguments made by DAW.
Perfect illustration of why even "moderate" religious believers are so potentially dangerous.

43. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #58364 by etny on July 24, 2007 at 3:54 pm

Stephen Sackur does not really bother to listen to Dawkins' answers. He keeps interrupting him and just follows his "attack" script. This does not make for an interesting discussion at all. The content of the book is hardly touched upon. This is getting tedious.

44. Debate between Sam Harris and Chris Hedges

Comment #50535 by etny on June 18, 2007 at 4:03 pm

Endless debates.
Because faith is... faith-based (vs. objective evidence-based), and that the key axiom of faith is that… if you lose (or even challenge) your faith, you lose the most precious thing in the world, a believer will defend his faith at all cost, without any regard for the validity of the opposing party's most challenging "reasoned" arguments.
Consequently, there can be no fruitful dialogue between faith and reason. Nothing new, I'm afraid.

45. True faith is greater than the ranters

Comment #40260 by etny on May 14, 2007 at 3:45 am

Why do people feel such a need to defend religious beliefs and/or religion by attacking Dawkins and his book? Anyone should welcome a good challenge to one's beliefs, religious or otherwise. Are we not all looking for the truth? Perhaps not... If Dawkins' book is enough to make you lose your faith, then perhaps your were on shaky grounds to begin with. If it offends you, then ask yourself why and come up with an honest answer. Richard, Sam and the like are simply adding to the selective pressure on religious "memes" (founded or not) that are in dire need of evolution. We should all be grateful for that.

46. Was Muhammad Epileptic?

Comment #35203 by etny on April 26, 2007 at 2:48 pm

Ramachandran? Making broad generalizations out of a single case is the opposite of the scientific method. Ramachandran himself is careful not to make that kind of generalization. Not everyone who has seizures of the temporal lobe has a mystical experience, and not every mystical experience involves the temporal lobe (as recent imaging studies with Carmelite nuns have shown). So let's not use science as some use religion.

47. The Empty Wager

Comment #32952 by etny on April 18, 2007 at 7:59 pm

Sam is missing a key point, which Dawkins expressed so naturally in a recent interview. Namely, "what's so special about having faith?"
Isn't living a good, ethical life what it's about? What kind of God would save you because you have believed in him, and what kind of God would send you to hell because you failed to do so (regardless of how good a human being you have been...).
Mr Warren, believing and preaching such blind nonsense rings of the Middle Ages and is the lowest degree of faith and religion.

48. For God's Sake

Comment #31600 by etny on April 13, 2007 at 12:43 pm

Naturalist1... Sorry to hear that.
Who would have predicted that the 21st century would begin with such a dreadful cocktail of religion and politics. What's this all about?!
I suspect Dawkins' book is also a big hit in Canada.

49. For God's Sake

Comment #31564 by etny on April 13, 2007 at 9:27 am

Hey Helian,
By then, Europe will under shariah rule.
Canada, anyone?

50. For God's Sake

Comment #31562 by etny on April 13, 2007 at 9:06 am

Denoir, you are correct.
And things are worst than that. A mere 50% of Americans actually vote to elect their president.
Right wing Christo-nuts are a motivated bunch, so they weigh heavily on the election. And once one of them gets elected (Bush), things unravel fast. Wars of choice, retooling of the judiciary with like-minded apparatchiks, faith-based cronyism, etc...