1. Children need to be sprinkled with fairy dust

Comment #272088 by SteveN on October 27, 2008 at 1:38 am

One of these letters, by a David A Robertson of Dundee, begins...

Richard, was your choice of wording a deliberate, albeit oblique, put-down or did you genuinely not recognise the name of this 'flea' author and frequent participant here? Just interested.

SteveN

2. Ricky Gervais and The Archbishop Of Canterbury

Comment #264424 by SteveN on October 14, 2008 at 11:36 am

I too have a soft spot for the Archbishop of Canterbury, mainly because I feel rather sorry for him. He's head of the CofE (apart from Her Majesty, that is) and is clearly an intelligent man, and he always tries to be reasonable, but isn't it a bit embarrassing that a man in his position and education is made to look so desparate in a conversation with Ricky Gervais*?

*Who, I must say, I admire immensely. I literally cried with laughter watching his stand-up bit about the Garden of Eden and his dissection of 'Humpty Dumpty'.

3. 'Intelligent' computers put to the test

Comment #262077 by SteveN on October 8, 2008 at 1:02 am

Hmm... I was entirely convinced that the second conversation was with a computer until I saw the apparent 'thonk' and 'dubjects' typos. Have the programmers been so sneaky as to force random typos in order to simulate a human, I wonder?

4. Mysterious Snippets Of DNA Withstand Eons Of Evolution

Comment #262074 by SteveN on October 8, 2008 at 12:56 am

I am always a bit wary of the use of knock-out mice to study phenotypes. Although any overt disease or disability would be quite apparent, there must be many traits that are highly useful in the wild that will not be immediately obvious in a laboratory setting. Are the mice tested for their sense of smell, or their colour vision, for example? I realise that genes for these abilities are largely known and are highly variable, but there may be other non-obvious phenotypes that are simply not required if you live in a box with a regular supply of food and water.

5. Surviving Waco

Comment #262071 by SteveN on October 8, 2008 at 12:47 am

"You are going to see something supernatural taking place over there in Jerusalem. It relates to the Mount of Olives. It's going to split. It'll become a wide valley, then it'll be lifted up. This light will appear on it," he says.

He claims this will be the "end of the world as we know it". He brushes off suggestions that people might think he is crazy.

I think "...people will know he is batshit crazy" is probably more accurate.

6. Leading geneticist Steve Jones says human evolution is over

Comment #261628 by SteveN on October 7, 2008 at 6:57 am

Ygern wrote:

Didn't our ancestors for hundreds of thousands of years have a life expectancy of about 25 years? But humans evolved anyway?

This was precisely the point I wanted to make and almost got to the end of the thread before finding it made by someone else. It is my understanding that the life-expectancy for most of human history has been in the 20-30 year range. However, having just checked Wikipedia to confirm this (it does) I realise that these calculations include all those who died before puberty: the life-expectancy for those who survive childhood was certainly higher. However, I would be surprised if the majority of fathers for most of human history were not in their teens or twenties. Is there any data to confirm or refute this?

SteveN

7. Why I left Young-earth Creationism

Comment #258813 by SteveN on October 2, 2008 at 11:32 am

It was Glenn Morton who coined the phrase Morton's Demon to describe the data filter creationists use to block exposure to evidence that contradicts their beliefs. Despite his failure to 'go all the way', I applaud Glenn for having the guts to get rid of his demon.

8. 'God as Science Fiction'. Richard Dawkins at the Edinburgh Book Festival

Comment #257480 by SteveN on September 30, 2008 at 1:24 pm

That was a refreshingly light and entertaining interview. Kudos to Paula for a job well done! And kudos, of course, to Richard for his excellent handling of the questions, both from Paula and from the audience.

I have, however, one or two slight quibbles with some of the things Richard said. The first is his description of the 'Goldilocks Zone' of Earth's orbit that, if it was a little smaller would result in all the water boiling away and if it was a little larger would result in all water freezing. He is forgetting, I think, local sources of heat and shade. Europa, for example, probably has vast liquid water oceans beneath its ice crust kept fluid by the heat generated by tidal forces on its core. I will be surprised if life is not found there. Mars has almost cerainly had liquid water in abundance in its history and may still have it some places. Any moon or planet with volcanic activity may provide niches of liquid water despite being a long way from the parent star. Similarly, of course, underground reservoirs of water could exist on planets closer to the sun or even on the surface in the 'twilight zone' of planets that keep the same face turned to their star.

My second criticism is Richard's complaint about the lack of imagination evident in science fiction writers when it comes to alien life forms. I think that if he were to read the truly excellent books of Ian M.Banks (who, ironically, seemed to be in the audience, according to Steve Zara) and many other modern SF authors, he might be forced to revise this judgement.

It's not often that I feel justified in criticising Richard, so I thought I should strike while the iron is hot!

Cheers,


SteveN

9. Cathedral seminar to equip clerics to deal with Dawkins

Comment #252936 by SteveN on September 23, 2008 at 11:36 pm

This is great for another reason besides the free publicity and tacit admission of the serious problem posed by Richard to the CofE. Having a 'flea' present arguments against the God Delusion to a bunch of clergy will have one of two effects. The intelligent ones (or maybe I should say, those capable of rational thought) will realise that the best on offer from their side is just hot air and no substance. The others will think they are now armed with good arguments and will joyfully take on the skeptics, only to be shot down in humiliating flames. It's a win-win situation!

Oops, just noticed that Beanson has said something similar in post #40.

10. Richard Dawkins infected with Satanic 'virus of mind', Christian group claims

Comment #251333 by SteveN on September 21, 2008 at 11:22 am

Sadly Prof Dawkins seems unwilling to keep the row going and is not commenting on the rather un-Christian attack on his character.

It is my experience that such actions are, to various degrees, quite typical of christians. Why, and against all available evidence, has 'christian' become associated with good, reasonable and respectful etc?

11. Turkey bans biologist Richard Dawkins' website

Comment #249291 by SteveN on September 18, 2008 at 12:33 am

It occurs to me that there is one thing guaranteed to make people aware of and read a website and that is to have the government ban it and have the ban announced on TV. I'm sure that instructions for circumventing the block will be readily available for anyone interested. I predict an increase in hits from Turkey in the coming days.

12. Pope condemns 'pagan' love of money, power

Comment #247720 by SteveN on September 15, 2008 at 1:05 am

I can't help feeling that Ratzi is the best thing that's happened to us 'Heathens'. He is so totally and hysterically out of touch, making the most outragiously hypocritical statements on almost a weekly basis, that surely even catholics (with the exception of the truly devout) must cringe with embarrassment when they hear such things.

13. Autism and Vaccines: Why Bad Logic Trumps Science

Comment #243768 by SteveN on September 7, 2008 at 9:45 am

For many years, the anti-vaxxers claimed that it was the presence of the organomercury-based preservative thiomersal in the vaccine that was causing autism. Despite there being no credible evidence that this was true, the CDC recommended the removal of thiomersal at the turn of the century 'to be on the safe side', which was perversely taken as proof by the anti-vaxxers that they were correct. Since then, the rates of diagnosed autism have continued to rise, a fact they conveniently fail to mention. Like the article suggests, logic is not their strong point.

Edit: I see that Mordacious1 beat me to it by one minute!

14. Yale Researchers Find 'Junk DNA' May Have Triggered Key Evolutionary Changes In Human Thumb And Foot

Comment #243696 by SteveN on September 7, 2008 at 12:24 am

DeepFritz wrote:

The line should actually say - the difference between humans and other apes. Humans are still apes...
There is less difference between us and orangutans than there is between a horse and a donkey.

Even more telling in this context, I think, is the fact that we are more closely related to chimps than chimps are to orangutans. Or, as chimps and humans diverged after the split from orangutan ancestors, humans and chimps (and bonobos) have exactly the same degree of relationship to orangutans, gibbons and gorillas.

SteveN

15. Large Hadron Collider readies for world's biggest experiment

Comment #243156 by SteveN on September 5, 2008 at 8:13 am

The LHC goes online on my birthday! I accept this wonderful present most gratefully.

16. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #241665 by SteveN on September 3, 2008 at 1:03 am

Richard, I think Sam will be incredibly chuffed that you are flattered by being mistaken for him.

Cheers

SteveN

17. Richard Dawkins on Talkback Radio

Comment #240850 by SteveN on September 1, 2008 at 7:07 am

Isthatclear wrote:

If you watch the video you can't miss it. He mentions about nobel prize winners.

Thanks for answering. However, I'm still not sure where to find it. You mention 'the video' although this article contains links to a radio interview, as others have pointed out. I have listened to the radio interview again and nowhere does Richard mention Nobel Prize laureates. I've also watched again the Q&A session of his UC Berkeley talk and have skimmed through the talk itself (again). No luck, I'm afraid. Could you be more specific, please?

18. Islam's war on freedom

Comment #240379 by SteveN on August 31, 2008 at 12:22 pm

Once again, Pat manages to warn us of the horror that is our future if we don't stop being so damned 'respectful', but somehow manages to make us laugh at the same time. Quite brilliant.

19. Genesis and the origin of the Origin of the species

Comment #240136 by SteveN on August 31, 2008 at 12:41 am

AdrianB wrote:

It would seem that the number of comments to the article in The Times has been stuck at 4 all day. Strange, since I expected this to feature in their list of most commented, and I know my comment hasn't been published.

I can only guess that the newspaper is trying to protect the poor rabbit's feelings.

The number of comments is now up to seven. I posted a comment when there was still zero on display, a shortened version (due to the character limit) of my post #3

This article is so full of cherry-picked half-truths , straw-men and woolly thinking that I am, not for the first time, appalled that it is given space in the Times. The Rabbi obviously didn't get his knighthood for his intellectual contributions. Another fine example of religious belief destroying the ability for rational thought.

This too has been ignored. Funnily enough, one comment that has been posted says "A good example of religious belief destroying the ability for rational thought", which is very similar to the only statement I made that I thought might be borderline 'insulting'. Very strange.

20. Richard Dawkins on Talkback Radio

Comment #239658 by SteveN on August 30, 2008 at 6:29 am

Ah, Isthatclear, you are back.

To reiterate my question in post #239023:

Isthatclear (or anyone else): I have been trying to find without success the talk by Richard in which he states that only eight Nobel Prize winners were believers. I am interested in the circumstances and the context. Could someone give me the source and approximate time please?

Any chance of an answer to this simple request?

21. Genesis and the origin of the Origin of the species

Comment #239567 by SteveN on August 29, 2008 at 11:51 pm

This article is so full of cherry-picked half-truths , straw-men and woolly thinking that I am, not for the first time, appalled that it is given space in the Times. The Rabbi obviously didn't get his knighthood for his intellectual contributions. Another fine example of religious belief destroying the ability for rational thought.

22. A Teacher on the Front Line as Faith and Science Clash

Comment #239276 by SteveN on August 29, 2008 at 11:04 am

Sciros, you appear to be shifting the goal-posts here a little, but if, as it now seems, you are conceding that the NOMA used was predominantly a one-way affair then we are in agreement on this point, which is good.

I, in turn, will agree that the students may well have realised that their religious beliefs had no place in the science class if they wanted to get a passing grade. However, I am not convinced that they accept that religion has nothing to say about science. Ceding ground to religion that it doesn't deserve in front of the whole class in order to help the few truculunt pupils is, in my opinion, a dangerous precedent to set. I personally feel that the integrity of science should never be compromised. You clearly feel that the ends justify the means while I, as a scientist, find such an action abhorent. However, I will accept that it is up to the individual teacher to decide what to do for the greater good of his or her class: it's not what I would do but my students are all post-graduate biology majors, so it's not a problem I have to face, I guess.

Cheers,


Steve

23. A Teacher on the Front Line as Faith and Science Clash

Comment #239231 by SteveN on August 29, 2008 at 9:24 am

Sciros wrote in post #239169:

I don't understand how it isn't clear that in the classroom NOMA is a two-way street where religious convictions are made to stay out and not derail discussions. Campbell wasn't looking to "shield" those religions students -- he was looking to do quite the opposite.

Sciros, I have thought for some time about your remarks and have read the article carefully once more. First, I would like to say that my comment that NOMA's "sole effect" is "shielding religion from scientific investigation" was made with regard to society as a whole, not just in the classroom, which I was prepared to concede might be a special case. However, having read again the article, I must say, to paraphrase your own words, that I don't understand how it isn't clear that in the classroom NOMA is a one-way street where scientific refutations of religious convictions are made to stay out and not derail discussions.
Here are two examples of NOMA from the article:

"Science explores nature by testing and gathering data," he said. "It can't tell you what's right and wrong. It doesn't address ethics. But it is not anti-religion. Science and religion just ask different questions."

...
"Can anybody think of a question science can't answer?"
"Is there a God?" shot back a boy near the window.
"Good," said Mr. Campbell, an Anglican who attends church most Sundays. "Can't test it. Can't prove it, can't disprove it. It's not a question for science."

Note that the "Science and religion just ask different questions" statement, which you may interpret as two-way NOMA, is used to justify what science can't do. Note also that the preceding statements that science can't differentiate right and wrong, doesn't address ethics and is not anti-religion are highly questionable to say the least. Certainly religion has nothing useful to say about ethics and morality.

In the only other example that I can find that might possibly be interpreted as two-way NOMA...

"Faith is not based on science," Mr. Campbell said. "And science is not based on faith. I don't expect you to 'believe' the scientific explanation of evolution that we're going to talk about over the next few weeks."
"But I do," he added, "expect you to understand it."

...the teacher is basically saying that it's OK to reject scientific evidence if it contradicts religious faith. Where in the article does the teacher say 'religion has nothing to say about human origins' or something similar?

I still only see a one-way street and I'm sorry to say that it is your assessment of NOMA that appears to inconsistent with reality. If I'm missing something obvious, perhaps you can spell it out for me. I mean that literally, not sarcastically: I am willing to be proven wrong.

Cheers,

SteveN

24. Richard Dawkins on Talkback Radio

Comment #239105 by SteveN on August 29, 2008 at 4:09 am

Nice one Philip1978. If only everyone would be willing to admit fault and apologise when presented with contradictory evidence.

25. A Teacher on the Front Line as Faith and Science Clash

Comment #239104 by SteveN on August 29, 2008 at 4:04 am

Smith wrote:

Ignorable note to SteveN: It just tickles me; the sizes of circles are irrelevant in Venn diagram.

OK, Cleverclogs, I hereby announce the invention of the SteveN Diagram. It's a cross between a Venn daigram and a bubble chart in the which the size of the circle corresponds to an associated value. Happy now? ;-)

26. A Teacher on the Front Line as Faith and Science Clash

Comment #239040 by SteveN on August 29, 2008 at 12:17 am

Sciros asked:

Well wait a second here. What about the article we're commenting under? It tells of another effect of NOMA, clearly

In the article above, NOMA is used by a teacher to avoid upsetting his religious students by exposing their beliefs to science:

"Science explores nature by testing and gathering data," he said. "It can't tell you what's right and wrong. It doesn't address ethics. But it is not anti-religion. Science and religion just ask different questions."

He grabbed the ball and held it still.

"Can anybody think of a question science can't answer?"

"Is there a God?" shot back a boy near the window.

"Good," said Mr. Campbell, an Anglican who attends church most Sundays. "Can't test it. Can't prove it, can't disprove it. It's not a question for science."

Maybe I should have said "NOMA therefore has the sole effect of being a tool used to shield religion from investigation by science" but the point I was trying to make is that in reality, NOMA is almost exclusively a one-way street.

What about questions such as "what is the most beautiful form of art?" Is that a scientific question or one of an altogether different domain? Do those domains overlap, and if so in what fashion? Do they overlap on all questions?

"What is the most beautiful form of art?" is obviously a matter of opinion and there is no objective answer to the question. However, opinions are formed in the brains of biological organisms through processes that, in principle if not (yet) in practice, are fully open to scientific investigation. It is, therefore, possible to determine why a particular individual has a particular concept of beauty. Questions of art, ethics, love etc are subsets of science (little circles within the big science circle) and not separate domains with some overlap with science.

Edit: I see Sargeist has said much the same thing

27. Richard Dawkins on Talkback Radio

Comment #239023 by SteveN on August 28, 2008 at 10:15 pm

Isthatclear (or anyone else): I have been trying to find without success the talk by Richard in which he states that only eight Nobel Prize winners were believers. I am interested in the circumstances and the context. Could someone give me the source and approximate time please?

28. A Teacher on the Front Line as Faith and Science Clash

Comment #239021 by SteveN on August 28, 2008 at 10:05 pm

Bonzai said:

"Applying NOMA" means insisting that religion must stay out of science. For those religious people who don't hold up their end of the deal, say the creationists, no one ever argued that they should be accomodated. In fact that is the whole point of NOMA: drawing a line in the sand.

I think that NOMA is totally wrong for one very simple reason: There is nothing that exists or occurs within this universe that cannot, in priniciple, be addressed by science. As someone in this or another thread recently said, the 'Domain of Science' is reality and the 'Domain of Religion' is everything else (i.e. nothing). It is not possible to draw a line in the sand when one side has all the sand. I mentioned somewhere else that a Venn diagram of science and religion should not be two separate circles (NOMA) or even two partially overlapping circles, but rather one very large circle (science) containing a much smaller circle (religion).

NOMA may have been constructed to exclude religion from science, but in practice there are very few theists (only the deists, really) who accept that their god does not interact with the universe in any way. NOMA therefore has the sole effect of being a tool used by the religious to shield themselves from investigation by science. NOMA is a pernicious fantasy with no place in reality-based education.

29. Atheism could be science's contribution to religion

Comment #238602 by SteveN on August 28, 2008 at 12:05 pm

NOMA is the concept of 'Non-Overlapping Magesteria' proposed by the great (and late) American evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould in which religion and science occupy totally separate areas of authority with no overlap. Unfortunately Gould, who was often considered the American rival to Richard, was wrong (in my opinion) about a number of things, including the importance of 'punctuated equilibrium' in evolutionary history. NOMA was another big mistake (again, in my opinion).

30. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #238395 by SteveN on August 28, 2008 at 4:48 am

I've been trying to find out in which talk Richard stated that "only eight believers had noble prizes" I am interested to know the circumstances and the context. Does anybody (isthatclear?) know where I can find it?

Cheers,


Steve

31. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #238352 by SteveN on August 28, 2008 at 3:08 am

It occurs to me that if the faithheads are going to claim as their own anyone who at some point in their life was a believer (as they do with Darwin in the list mentioned above) then we are equally justified in claiming anyone who was at some point not a believer to be on our side. As everyone is born without belief in god, we can therefore claim every pope and bishop, plus Mohammed and Jesus to be 'famous atheists' ;-)

32. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #238344 by SteveN on August 28, 2008 at 2:57 am

The believers who received Noble prizes.

http://www.adherents.com/people/100_Nobel.html

Well, as the very first person on the list is Albert Einstein, who once wrote:

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

and

The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this

So I guess we can conclude that this is yet another example of 'Lying for Jesus', eh?

And it takes some nerve to include Darwin on the list of 'Founders of Modern Science' who believe(d) in God. Sheesh!

Edit: I see Epeeist beat me to it.

33. It's no wonder evangelical atheists need to shout so loud

Comment #238327 by SteveN on August 28, 2008 at 2:07 am

Blakjak, I must agree with Philip1978. I would prefer your 'captain's announcement' to the usual platitudes. I wonder how many people have died with the words "This is your captain speaking. We are experiencing some technical difficulties. There is no cause for alarm" ringing in their ears? At least with your 'profane' version, I would die laughing.

34. Atheism could be science's contribution to religion

Comment #238322 by SteveN on August 28, 2008 at 1:48 am

Sargeist said:

It is only because of the authors' names and Richard's approval of the article that I am confident that it is critical of NOMA.

Don't forget that the Templeton foundation has been, in effect, trying to do away with the idea of NOMA, sponsoring as it has the scientific investigation of religious beliefs. I dislike both NOMA and 'research at the intersection of science and spirituality' because both assume that there is such a thing as spirituality/religion that is partly or wholly distinct from scientific investigation. As I have said before, science does indeed have the potential to explain everything, including those areas of human experience usually considered the domain of religion and spirituality. My Venn diagram would not have two distinct (NOMA) or partially overlapping (Templeton Foundation) circles but instead would be comprised of a (very small) circle (spirituality/religion) contained within one big one (science).

35. Atheism could be science's contribution to religion

Comment #238300 by SteveN on August 28, 2008 at 12:38 am

I personally have always disliked and distrusted the Templeton Foundation and I think that Nature did a disservice to science by publishing the editorial as it did. The TF's efforts to promote 'research at the intersection of science and spirituality' implies that spirituality is a real area of investigation distinct from science. Throwing money at religion/spirituality in an attempt to give it scientific credibility is, I feel, deluded at best. I was therefore disappointed by Nature's editorial when it first appeared and applaud Cobb and Coyne's direct and forthright letter.

Cheers


SteveN

36. Atheism could be science's contribution to religion

Comment #238293 by SteveN on August 28, 2008 at 12:16 am

For those of you without access to Nature, here is the original editorial to which the letter above is replying:

When a wealthy individual seeks to leave a legacy through scientific philanthropy, researchers usually greet such generosity enthusiastically. But the death of investment mogul John Templeton marks an unusual, and notable, exception. At the time of his passing last week, Templeton had poured some US$1.5 billion into the John Templeton Foundation, which funds research at the intersection of science and spirituality. Critics have maintained that the foundation needlessly conflates science and faith, with some calling for an outright boycott of Templeton funding.

Templeton was a deeply spiritual, albeit unorthodox, individual (see page 290). He lived a life firmly rooted in the Christian traditions of modesty and charity. Yet he was also a great admirer of science, the undogmatic practice of which he believed led to intellectual humility. His love of science and his God led him to form his foundation in 1987 on the basis that a mutual dialogue might enrich the understanding of both.

This publication would turn away from religion in seeking explanations for how the world works, and believes that science is likely to go further in explaining human moral impulses than some religious people will welcome. Thus it shares a degree of suspicion with many in the scientific community at any attempt by religiously driven organizations to fund science. A chief concern is that the influential Templeton Foundation might be seeking to inject religion into the scientific world. And it is easy to understand that concern given the political activism of many American fundamentalists and their efforts to promote ideas such as intelligent design, which posits a divine hand in evolution. The foundation's most vigorous critics accuse it of attempting to lace science with spiritualism.

That claim is somewhat ironic, as Templeton himself seemed to have just the opposite in mind. He believed institutional religion to be antiquated, and hoped a dialogue with researchers might bring about advances in theological thinking. The foundation's substantial funding of science and religion departments around the world is directed towards those ends. Theologians have also used foundation money to develop and promote arguments that reconcile some of the apparent contradictions between science and religion. For those many scientists with a faith, promoting the compatibility of science with faith is a prudent and even necessary goal. Strict atheists may deplore such activities, but they can happily ignore them too.

The foundation's scientific agenda addresses 'big questions', which has sometimes resulted in work that many researchers regard as scientifically marginal. One field popular with the foundation is positive psychology, which seeks to gauge the effects of positive thinking on patients, and which critics argue has yielded little. Also heavily supported are cosmological studies into the existence of multiple universes -- a notion frequently criticized for lying at the edge of falsifiability. The concern is that such research has been unduly elevated by the foundation's backing. But whatever one thinks of positive psychology and the like, the foundation's support has not taken anything away from conventional funding. And in the field of cosmology at least, it has arguably yielded some new and interesting ideas.

The foundation's management now falls chiefly to Templeton's son, John M. Templeton Jr, whose Christian beliefs are reportedly much more conventional than his father's. A critical scrutiny of the foundation's scientific influence continues to be warranted, and no scientific organization should accept sums of money so large that its mission could be perceived as being swayed by religious or spiritual considerations. But critics' total opposition to the Templeton Foundation's unusual mix of science and spirituality is unwarranted.

37. A Teacher on the Front Line as Faith and Science Clash

Comment #238282 by SteveN on August 27, 2008 at 11:36 pm

Sciros wrote:

SteveN, your suggestion that religious students just be flat-out told they're wrong and that religion is fully false -- it is naive

I didn't say that the teacher should claim that religion is fully false. What I said was:

Students who publically refuse to accept a scientific fact because of their beliefs should not be molly-coddled and treated with respect (at the same time gaining kudos with their peers for standing up to the teacher), they should be told quite clearly that their beliefs are simply wrong in this respect.

I agree that it is not the teacher's job or duty to tell a student that everything about their religion is wrong. However, if a teacher says, for example, that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old and a student insists that it is 6000 years old based on his or her religion, then this should be firmly and unequivocally refuted. There should be no 'well, that is another way of looking at the evidence' rubbish. They should be told that this belief is simply wrong. Of course no student is going to abandon his or her entire religion in one fell swoop, but by continually chipping away at the misinformation and misunderstanding that comes bundled with such beliefs, the student may at least be persuaded to reassess the more fundamental aspects of their indoctrination.

38. A Teacher on the Front Line as Faith and Science Clash

Comment #238273 by SteveN on August 27, 2008 at 10:12 pm

root2squared wrote:

And even if it can't, I think the scientific method is the probably the only one that can get us the closest to truth.

Indeed. Actually, I should have said "...everything that exists and occurs in this universe can, in principle, be addressed by science." It may be a thousand or a million years before we have the scientific tools to answer questions such as 'what caused the Big Bang' or 'why are the universal constants precisely what they are' but I feel sure that these can be answered eventually.

39. A Teacher on the Front Line as Faith and Science Clash

Comment #238266 by SteveN on August 27, 2008 at 9:55 pm

Having just caught up on the 50 or so posts that have appeared while I slept, I would like to put in my two cents-worth concerning NOMA.

While it may be true that Gould intented NOMA to exclude religion from science as much as science from religion, this is certainly not how it is used in practice. As has been pointed out earlier (I think by root2squared) it is only the deists who adhere to this. None of the mainstream religions accept a non-interventionist god. Scientists and educators, on the other hand, bend over backwards to play the NOMA card when it comes to difficult questions about belief that might upset someone's religious sensibilities. This leads to the impression that reality is indeed divided into 'scientific truth' and 'religious/spiritual truth', each being equally valid. My impression (from personal experience only) is that this viewpoint is quite dominant within the general population ('science answers the 'how' questions while religion answers the 'why' questions). This veiwpoint is simply wrong, in my opinion. As I stated earlier, everything that exists and occurs in this universe can be addressed by science. We may not yet have the tools to understand the biological basis of, for example, love and consciousness but we're getting pretty close.

I therefore feel myself in almost complete agreement with root2squared. Any suggestion in a science class that invokes the supernatural should be firmly shot down in flames. Students who publically refuse to accept a scientific fact because of their beliefs should not be molly-coddled and treated with respect (at the same time gaining kudos with their peers for standing up to the teacher), they should be told quite clearly that their beliefs are simply wrong in this respect. Perhaps if students are shown over and over again that their beliefs do not match reality, they will start thinking for themselves.

40. Richard Dawkins on Talkback Radio

Comment #237934 by SteveN on August 27, 2008 at 12:35 pm

Stryer wrote in #237665

Fuck trying to get through to them. Fuck being reasonable. Fuck granting them an easy NOMA way out. Let's start spouting - LOUDLY - the fucking truth. Let's start telling the fuckers that they DO NOT get to indoctrinate our kids' brains with their filthy shit simply because they've historically been able to do so. Let's NOT PERMIT yet another generation to grow up filled with superstitious supernaturalist horseshit.

Let's finally get angry. To all - let's go verbally assault at least one theist today. Let them know we're here, that we're vocal, and that we mean fucking business. And that enough is finally enough.

Once again, Stryer, you have managed to express (albeit in a style that is somewhat different to my own) precisely my feelings in this matter. I am sick to the teeth of intelligent and rational thinkers bending over backwards to give 'respect' to the ignorant, bigoted ideologies of the deluded. They, and their ridiculous beliefs, should be ridiculed at every opportunity. As you so eloquently say, 'Fuck being reasonable'.

Edit: Upon rereading my post, I realise that it might be misinterpreted as sarcasm. It was not.

41. A Teacher on the Front Line as Faith and Science Clash

Comment #237863 by SteveN on August 27, 2008 at 10:47 am

Severalspeciesof wrote:

If left in that context, with no other information, you are correct. But with a specific enough context, with enough information, you CAN disprove the existence of something.

Exactly! This is the point I was trying to make in my post (#237806) about the elephant in the room.

42. A Teacher on the Front Line as Faith and Science Clash

Comment #237818 by SteveN on August 27, 2008 at 8:08 am

Smith (#237814), I fully agree. I was just trying to preempt the 'the elephant might be invisible/intangible' type of excuse to prevent the existence of the elephant being disproved. As far as I can see, these sort of excuses to justify the axiom 'cannot prove a negative' are equally applicable to 'cannot prove a positive'. The black raven might be an illusion, after all.

43. A Teacher on the Front Line as Faith and Science Clash

Comment #237806 by SteveN on August 27, 2008 at 7:52 am

I've always had a problem with the view that 'it is impossible to prove a negative'. While I agree that it is impossible to disprove the existence, as I said earlier, of an omniscient being who wishes to remain hidden, if I claim to have a real, solid, living, visible, non-supernatural 3-metre tall elephant in my living room, surely that can be disproved? As long as I am not allowed excuses such as those given by Sagan concerning the dragon in his garage, why can my claim not be disproven?

44. A Teacher on the Front Line as Faith and Science Clash

Comment #237796 by SteveN on August 27, 2008 at 7:28 am

Beeline wrote:

SteveN said:

However, the interactions of a god with the universe can be put to the test. That is, claims that god responds to prayer, for example, can be tested empirically, as can claims of faith-healing etc. It's a bit like the situation with dark matter: we can't see it but we can test for it's existence by it's interaction with baryonic matter.

But those tests won't give a definitive disproof. They'll just fail to make us believe a thing exists any more than we did previously. Repeated failure to find, say, BigFoot, doesn't logically mean that he's gradually being proved to exist less and less. He either does or he doesn't, and you cannot prove he doesn't: you can only prove he does (by finding him).

I agree entirely and didn't wish to suggest that it is possible to disprove the existence of god. I just wanted to point out that the claims made by theists about the interactions of their imagninary friend with the real world can be tested in a scientific way. I, like Richard, disagree strongly with Gould's NOMA approach to religion and science. As far as I'm concerned, anything that exists in this universe is fair game for science - either now or in the future - and I include the usual no-go areas such as love, consciousness and free-will etc.


Edit: Just to make my point a bit clearer. Theists will often say that god is 'outside of time and space' (whatever that means) and cannot therefore be tested by science. However, they also say that god answers prayers, cures the sick etc etc (at Lourdes, for example) which is most definitely taking place 'inside space and time' and is therefore open to science.

I actually get annoyed by fellow scientists who say things like 'science has nothing to say about god - it's outside our remit'. I strongly disagree. The only type of god that is truly immune to scientific investigation is the 'hands-off' god of the deists. But why bother praying to and worshipping an entity that does nothing?

45. A Teacher on the Front Line as Faith and Science Clash

Comment #237781 by SteveN on August 27, 2008 at 6:52 am

I'm a bit late to this discussion, so I apologise if this has been already addressed.

My take on the question of whether or not the existence of god(s) can be tested scientifically is that it is not possible to devise a test that will disprove the existence of an omniscient being who wishes to remain hidden. The deist's god who sparked the big bang and then just left the universe to do it's own thing cannot be disproven (yet).

However, the interactions of a god with the universe can be put to the test. That is, claims that god responds to prayer, for example, can be tested empirically, as can claims of faith-healing etc. It's a bit like the situation with dark matter: we can't see it but we can test for it's existence by it's interaction with baryonic matter.

46. Pastor Michael Guglielmucci spun gospel of lies

Comment #237695 by SteveN on August 27, 2008 at 3:43 am

Stryer wrote:

Guy's a cunt.

Read his posts for confirmation (sockpuppets included).

Oh indeed, I agree fully. I have been reading his drivel for a long time now and was fully aware of your opinion of him. I just thought that your post #237671 was such an amusing (and accurate) put-down that I felt compelled to make a comment (which included a winky smiley, of course). I especially liked:

Let me spell it out to you, you ignorant little man - your filth fails at each and every edge of any notion of decency, of compassion, of human solidarity. Your shameful presence here has eloquently attested to this, as you repeatedly show yourself to be the most worm-like, pathetic, ignorant, duplicitous, unkind, unsympathetic 'man of the cloth' many of us have ever encountered.

Excellent!

Irate_atheist wrote:

If you gave Robertson an enema, you could bury him in a matchbox.

That gives me an idea. Maybe Stryer should write insults for Hithchens to use, although I guess The Hitch doesn't need help in that department.


Cheers


SteveN

47. Pastor Michael Guglielmucci spun gospel of lies

Comment #237683 by SteveN on August 27, 2008 at 1:55 am

Stryer, I'm beginning to get the impression from your last three posts that you're not very fond of the Reverend David Robertson. Am I right? ;-)

Edited: two->three

48. Pastor Michael Guglielmucci spun gospel of lies

Comment #237680 by SteveN on August 27, 2008 at 1:44 am

The article in question, together with the one concerning the exhumation of the putatively homosexual cardinal (which has also disappeared), still appears in the RSS feed of my browser menu and the link works OK. I suspect a glitch rather than active censorship.

49. Richard Dawkins on Talkback Radio

Comment #237662 by SteveN on August 26, 2008 at 10:57 pm

It has been pointed out in numerous places that this is a fallacy of equivocation, a law of nature is not a law like those that require a maker.

Just to expand on this point, the use of the word 'Law' with regards to nature is an unfortunate historical tradition. As Wikipedia puts it, a law of nature is "a scientific generalization based on empirical observations of physical behavior".

50. Richard Dawkins on Talkback Radio

Comment #236826 by SteveN on August 25, 2008 at 12:04 pm

When the faithful make the argument (as they often do and as one of the callers did) that the Universe, and the Earth in particular, is clearly designed to support human life, I have to ask "on what planet in which universe are you living?" It doesn't take a genius to notice that the Earth is 2/3 covered in water and that the rest if often too hot, too dry or too cold to comfortably support human life. And as for the remaining 99.99999999.....% of the universe - how hostile is that? Designed for humans? I don't think so.