1. If You Open Your Mind Too Much Your Brain Will Fall Out (Take My Wife)

Comment #270804 by Atticus_of_Amber on October 24, 2008 at 5:06 pm

Brilliant.

2. Abortion bill's rights 'breach'

Comment #260744 by Atticus_of_Amber on October 6, 2008 at 1:43 am

How is requiring a doctor to inform a patient of their own condition (e.g. pregnant with a horribly deformed child) a breach of human rights? How is requiring them to tell patients that a service is available a breach?

The can still have their view, and even express them.

For example:

Dr: Madam, your baby has condition X and will be horribly deformed when born. Chances are he or she won't live long after birth, but there's a chance and we'll do our very best.

Mother: Deformed, how? Brain damaged?

Dr: Yes, probably. Probably very severely.

Mother: Oh my God. Is there nothing we can do?

Dr: No. Although, and I find this uncomfortable, I do have to tell you that you do have the option of what is euphemistically called "termination": You can kill the baby before he or she is born.

Mother: You mean, an abortion?

Dr: Yes, that's what some people call it. Clearly, I have strong views on this. I'm more than happy to talk about why I don't think you should even think about doing such a thing. But not all doctors take the same view. There's a list of doctors at my reception and, if you want to pursue that, um, option, you should try any of the one's that aren't listed as part of a Catholic institution.

Mother: How long do I have to decide?

Dr: Um, this makes me really uncomfortable. I'm biased - I'd say I'm biased in favour of being moral and against murder, but I have to tell you there are other doctors who'd take a different view. All I'll say is that it's, well, "easy" in the first trimester, harder in the second and really hard in the thrid. You're half way through the second trimester. I'm sorry, but if you want to discuss that further, I think you'd better see one of those other doctors. It's your business of course, but I'd really urge you to talk to your husband and your priest as well.

This doctor clearly has views that piss me off. And he's clearly putting his view. But he's also clearly declared his bias, given her the relevant information. Surely that's fair?

3. Dying of the Light

Comment #260738 by Atticus_of_Amber on October 6, 2008 at 1:32 am

[Deleted - wrong thread!]

4. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #241715 by Atticus_of_Amber on September 3, 2008 at 1:59 am

Oh, and as for Sam's speech: bracing as always.

I mean, we all know that this "average guy in the White House" shtick is BS, but you aren't supposed to *say* that!!!

Sam Harris breaking taboos - who'd a thunk it? ;-)

Seriously though, I agree. I don't want an "ordinary Joe" to be POTUS. I want the man or woman in that role to be out of the ordinary. I want them to have relevant experience and proven judgment and that certain ruthlessness (both with themselves and others) that real leadership unfortunately requires. In short, I want an experienced Machiavellian with idealistic goals. That's why I originally supported Hillary. It's why I was sympathetic to McCain. It's why I'm hoping that Obama is much more of a ruthless SOB than he appears.

5. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #241707 by Atticus_of_Amber on September 3, 2008 at 1:49 am

I was profoundly suspicious of Obama because of his inexperience and his apparently sincere religious convictions. Both McCain and Clinton seemed to me to be clearly superior, both in terms of qualifications and my suspicion that their religiosity was merely for public consumption. This is a time of real shooting war between the forces of the Enlightenment and the forces of religious idiocy - added to which, Russia suddenly seems to be keen to restart the Cold War. In that context, I want the leading nation of the civilized world to have some real foreign and/or defence policy heft in the White House (my preference was for a ticket of Hillary Clinton and Wesley Clark).

But then Obama showed himself to be very adept, at least in the dark arts of political campaigning. Then he chose a very experienced politician in Joe Biden as his VP. And then he gave a surprisingly and satisfying specific, non-vague acceptance speech - the first Obama speech since his 2004 convention speech that has actually impressed me.

And now McCain chooses this nutjob.

For a while there I wanted to want McCain to win - but he's just lost me.

Case closed. Obama-Biden 08!

6. Ayaan Hirsi Ali & The Big Ideas Forum

Comment #239224 by Atticus_of_Amber on August 29, 2008 at 9:13 am

Message to Ayaan Hirsi Ali: Stop sharing a platform with crazy people!

OTOH, I think that was Jim Spigelman, the Chief Justice of New South Wales on that panel too. What was he *thinking*?

7. Ayaan Hirsi Ali & The Big Ideas Forum

Comment #239208 by Atticus_of_Amber on August 29, 2008 at 8:43 am

Warning! The CIS is Australia's resident libertarian nutjob thinktank.

Check out the anti-climate change rant engaged in by the first speaker.

8. Bill Maher on Religion

Comment #233474 by Atticus_of_Amber on August 20, 2008 at 1:19 am

Mitchell Gilks: "I know what's going to happen when I die. The universe will implode, because it surely can't go on without me."

I can't remember who it was who said: "It isn't me, but the world, that will end with I die." In a one-hand-clapping sense, that's true.

9. Richard Dawkins on Doctor Who

Comment #201049 by Atticus_of_Amber on June 28, 2008 at 9:33 pm

I don't know why people are saying RD's "acting' was "bad" here.

It seems to me he wasn't "acting" at all. He seemed to me to behave exactly as I would expect him to if the events portrayed had really happened: he looked at the evidence, saw where it takes him, and then get got little annoyed at people who refused to accept the obvious conclusions. A pure, genuine Dawkins reaction, as far as I can tell.

Bravo I say.

10. The Neural Buddhists

Comment #179747 by Atticus_of_Amber on May 13, 2008 at 3:52 pm

My letter to the NYT:

Dear Editor,

Clearly David Brooks has not read the "new atheists" he tendentiously compares with the findings of modern neuroscience ("The Neural Buddhists", May 13, 2008). Indeed, the author who kicked off the "new atheist" movement, Sam Harris, is a neuroscientist himself.

But more than that, Harris is a former seeker, a man who spent ten years in meditation retreats and with yogis and monks (including a stint as a bodyguard for the Dalai Lama). In the last chapter of his "The End of Faith", Harris argues that there really is something worthwhile and wonderful about the mystical experiences that lie at the root of most of our religions. These experiences are real and important and increasingly measurable by neuroscientists - but the truth about them is buried beneath mountains of "metaphysical bullshit". Harris extols the virtues of the contemplative disciplines at the same time as he is withering in his criticism of the ancient theology and modern "New Age" waffle that so often goes with them. What we need, argues Harris, is to take a ruthlessly logical and scientific approach to these ancient disciplines, to separate the wheat from the chaff.

And it's not just Harris. Daniel Dennett has made similar points. Anyone who has read Richard Dawkins will be aware that he is no stranger to the wonder and awe of the universe or the beauty of art and poetry. Even Christopher Hitchens is at pains to point out that he seeks to separate the transcendent from the supernatural so as to save the former from the latter.

It would be nice if people like Brooks actually bothered to read the "new atheists" before attempting to criticise them.

11. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #164857 by Atticus_of_Amber on April 20, 2008 at 6:56 pm

Hmmmm, FWIW, see my "http://richarddawkins.net/article,2203,Morality-and-the-new-atheism,Online-Opinion[/url]

Hell, here it is in full:

A common criticism of the so-called "new atheists" (who I prefer to call the "new anti-dogmatists") is the "problem of morality": how, many religious critics ask, can we be good without God? Isn't the fact that people are good, that people can tell good from evil, evidence for the existence of God? Even if God is a myth, isn't He necessary to inspire people to acts of goodness and to keep them from falling into immorality? And in any case, don't we get our morals from our religious traditions?

A key problem here is that this "good without God" criticism is really at least five different arguments jumbled together.


The argument from scripture

First comes the argument from scripture: "how can we know what's good without a book of rules, like the Bible?" This is the one that Richard Dawkins so ably rebuts with his "cherry picking" point in his recent best-seller, The God Delusion. The Bible is full of horrible acts and recommendations. It also contains some very kind and good acts and rules. Most Christians don't follow the former any more, but continue to follow the latter. How do they chose? What do they use to "cherry pick" the Bible in this way? It's not something in the Bible, it's something in the reader. If this moral sense exists in us and allows us to pick the good bits of the Bible from the bad, what do we need the Bible for, except as one among many anthologies of moral propositions on which to practice our moral sense?


The platonic argument

Second, there's the Platonic "by what standard" argument: "granted we have an innate moral sense, but how can we know what's right and wrong if there is no absolute standard of right in the universe?", says the theist. "Doesn't our ability to recognise that some acts are good and others evil imply that there must somewhere exist a perfect thing of goodness to be the standard? Doesn't our moral sense itself act as evidence of the existence of God?"

Here the error is epistemological: of course we can judge degrees of something even though a perfect sample of that something does not really exist. Nowhere in reality is there such a thing as a perfectly straight line. Yet we are easily able to judge and even rank the straightness of connections between two points in the real world with relative ease - this hand-drawn line on this piece of paper is straighter than that one; this rooftop is straighter than that one; the path of this meteor is straighter than that one, and so on.


The argument from the mysterious origin of morality

The third argument is related to the second, the "origins of morality" point: "Granted we have a moral sense, but where did that come from?" say the critics. "It can't have evolved, because it often gets us to do things that aren't selfish, even in the sense of enlightened selfishness."

This argument misunderstands the neo-Darwinian insight popularised in Professor Dawkins' 1976 book, The Selfish Gene. We are genuinely altruistic because our genes are "selfish". A gene that causes its carriers to be genuinely altruistic will have a reproductive advantage if its carriers live in groups of largely related individuals. By risking its life for the group because of the genuine altruism given to it by the gene, one carrier of that gene will increase the reproductive chances of other carriers of the same gene. (The selfish gene explanation also works for groups where the same non-relatives regularly interact and can engage in "reciprocal altruism".)

Evolution has given us what Dawkins calls a "lust to be good", much in the way it has given us a lust to have sex (we're "horny to do good", as one interviewer put it recently). Does this mean that altruism only makes sense if it's for relatives? Only in the sense that sex only "make sense" when it's done for procreation - or that love only "make sense" if it's being used to solidify a pair-bond for the 20 or so years needed to help the survival of offspring. The evolutionary explanation for an urge is not the same thing as a justification for why we should, as rational creatures, promote or fight that urge today.
Mirror neurons and moral progress

Recent research by neuroscientist such as VS Ramachandran and Marco Iacoboni have discovered what are being called "mirror neurons". When a monkey experiences pain from, say, being kicked in the testicles, several neurons can be observed to fire in his brain. But if the monkey observes another monkey being kicked in the testicles, a few (not all) of those same neurons fire in the observing monkey's brain. (I've chosen the example for dramatic effect. I doubt this was the actual experiment conducted.)

It seems mirror neurons evolved as the means by which primates learn skills from each other: observe the other primate doing the skill, feel which mirror neurons fire, then try to make the same mirror neurons fire by doing the action - repeat, refine, learn skill. One side effect was empathy, the ability to feel the pain and pleasure of others (another side effect, according to some researchers, may have been the development of consciousness itself).

It appears that this new capacity for empathy allowed altruism to develop, and that mutation propagated because of the reproduction-enhancing properties of altruism discussed by Dawkins in The Selfish Gene. But from the gene's perspective, altruism is a two-edged sword: it's great if your carriers sacrifice themselves for other carriers, but it's horrible if your carriers start sacrificing themselves for non-carriers.

The solution seems to have been the "taming" of the empathy/altruism characteristic by the evolution of in-group v out-group thinking. What evolved (one suspects both genetically and culturally) was a distinction between the in-group, where empathy was appropriate (and whose members were likely to carry many of the same genes) and out-groups, where empathy was blocked or even turned into its dark twin antipathy - the tendency of animals to feel the pain of others and enjoy it.

The story of moral progress seems to me to be the story of the marriage between our evolved capacity for empathy and our evolved capacity for reason. As we apply our reason to our urge to be altruistic, and as we become more interconnected with strangers, we see fewer reasons to put people into the "out group". Our psychological "in group" expands until in some people it covers not just the whole human race, but sentient non-human animals too.

Of course there are gradations. Seeing my wife happy gives me more pleasure (and seeing her in pain causes me more suffering) than seeing a stranger I admire happy (or in pain). And an admired stranger's happiness matters more to me that that of a stranger I've never even heard of (though I still feel bad when I witness or hear of such a stranger suffering). But most of us in the liberal democratic West have very few people in our "out-group" - and we tend to feel ashamed about feeling that way even about them.
The role of religion in moral progress

"But," asks the fourth version of the good without God criticism, "hasn't religion in general, and Christianity in particular, been the context in which this moral development has occurred?"

And the fair answer is yes, religion in general (and Christianity in particular) has helped enormously. Just as alchemy made many discoveries that were built on by chemistry, and astrology made some discoveries that were built on by astronomy (mostly in the field of cataloguing astral bodies, but still useful discoveries), Christianity made or widely propagated several moral innovations that modern secular moral philosophy has built upon. (Similar claims can be made for several other religions.) Not for nothing did Richard Dawkins once write an article entitled "Atheists for Jesus".

But religion has also contaminated the stream with some very strange and unfounded ideas. Just as there is no evidence that one can turn lead into gold and there is no evidence that the movements of the planet Venus affect my destiny; there is no evidence that there is a "soul" that enters the human zygote at conception, or that there is an afterlife in which kindness is rewarded and cruelty is punished. And it is religions' reliance on the dogma of faith that makes it so hard to use reason to sort the good ideas from the bad.


The sanction argument

This, of course, leads us to the fifth argument of the theistic "problem of morality" critic, the sanction argument: "why be good if there's no comeuppance in the afterlife?"

This argument seems to say that people would be evil if they did not fear punishment in hell or that they would not help their fellow humans without the hope of a pay-off in heaven. Aside from being questionable theology even in its own terms, the sanction argument reveals a very dim view of human nature. Many humanists simply believe human beings are better than that and are, on average, getting better all the time - that we are, as someone once said, "rising apes rather than fallen angels".

Moreover, the argument that people would be horrible without belief in God seems to have been falsified by the experience of organically atheist societies such as Sweden, as I argued in a previous post. Of course, the fact that widespread atheism doesn't lead to social chaos still leaves open the question of why it doesn't. But the neuroscience and evolutionary arguments put above do suggest that humans are more innately good than many religious people would credit.

For my part, I think an important answer was provided by the ancients - virtue or self-respect. (And isn't it interesting that "virtue ethics" is making a comeback in academic philosophy?)

We judge the acts of others, and think well or ill of them as a result. But we also do the same of ourselves. Self-hatred is actually a rather nasty psychological torture and an important part of mental health is having a good reputation with oneself. We can gain a good reputation with others either by actually being good, or by tricking others into believing we are good. But with our reputations with ourselves, the latter course involves a level of self-deception that is itself mentally unhealthy. Good deeds, it seems to me, really are their own reward.

12. Charles Simonyi Professorship in the Public Understanding of Science

Comment #125562 by Atticus_of_Amber on February 11, 2008 at 3:38 pm

In speculating about what Richard might do after leaving the Chair, I went and had a look at the critier for nominating a person to eh Hosue of Lords pointed to by a poster upthread. IMHO, Richard fits them all.

* With a record of significant achievement within their chosen way of life that demonstrates a range of experience, skills and competencies;

RD easlily fits this criteria. Original contribution to science (The Extended Pheontype), great teacher, great populariser of science, etc.

* Who are able to make an effective and significant contribution to the work of the House of Lords, not only in their areas of particular interest and special expertise but the wide range of other issues coming before the House;

Again, Dawkins' record of journalsim and debtates on a wide variety of issues speaks to his ability to fulfill this criteria.

* With some understanding of the constitutional framework, including the place of the House of Lords, and the skills and qualities needed to be an effective member of the House �" for example, nominees should be able to speak with independence and authority;

While RD isn't a legal scholar (and how! some of the few times I've disagreed with his public positions are when he speaks on legal issues). But I'm sure he understands what the role would entail.

* With the time available to ensure they can make an effective contribution within the procedures and working practices of the House of Lords. This does not necessarily mean the same amount of time expected of “working peers”. The Commission recognises that many active members continue with their professional and other working interests and this can help maintain expertise and experience;

Given he'll no longer have the responsibilities of the Chair, he should have more time. I imagine msot of his time will be taken up with writing. As long as he (and Lalla) doesn't object to more regualr trips to London, I imagine he'd be able to give the job the time it deserves.

* Who are able to demonstrate outstanding personal qualities, in particular integrity and independence;

I'd say he has this in spades.

* With a strong and personal commitment to the principles and highest standards of public life. Details of the resolutions adopted by the House on the declaration and registration of Lords’ interests can be found on Parliament’s website at www.parliament.uk

Ditto.

* Who are independent of any political party. Nominees and the Commission will need to feel confident of their ability to be independent of party political considerations whatever their past party- political involvement. For this reason, all nominees are asked to respond to the questions on political involvement and activities which are similar to those used for most public appointments.

While I can't imagine that RD voted for the Tories in recent years, he's been pretty hard on Labour too. I'd say he's clearly politically independent.

I'm an Aussie, so I don't think I can nominate. But what do the Brits here think about puitting togetehr a nomination? I think it best that Richard not be involved except for one thing: Richard, if you don't want to be nominated, say so and I'll shut up.

13. Charles Simonyi Professorship in the Public Understanding of Science

Comment #125555 by Atticus_of_Amber on February 11, 2008 at 3:25 pm

In speculating about what Richard Dawkins might do next, I just looked at the UK government website on the criteria for choosing Life Peers. Richard fits them all:

"a record of significant achievement within their chosen way of life that demonstrates a range of experience, skills and competencies;"

Tick. Original cotribution to science (The Extended Phenotype). Great teacher. Great populariser of science. Participant in public debates.

"are able to make an effective and significant contribution to the work of the House of Lords, not only in their areas of particular interest and special expertise but the wide range of other issues coming before the House;"

Tick.

"some understanding of the constitutional framework, including the place of the House of Lords, and the skills and qualities needed to be an effective member of the House �" for example, nominees should be able to speak with independence and authority;"

Tick. He may not be a legal scholar (and how! most of the few times I've disagreed with Richard are when he's written on legal topics) but he clearly is knowledgable enough to understand the role.

"the time available to ensure they can make an effective contribution within the procedures and working practices of the House of Lords. This does not necessarily mean the same amount of time expected of “working peers”. The Commission recognises that many active members continue with their professional and other working interests and this can help maintain expertise and experience;"

I think this is also a tick. I expect most of Richard's time will be spent writing. As long as he (and Lalla are ok with him making regular trips to london, I imagine he'd have the time to do the job.

"able to demonstrate outstanding personal qualities, in particular integrity and independence;"

Well, that's subjective, but my view is he gets a big tick here too.

"a strong and personal commitment to the principles and highest standards of public life."

Ditto.

"independent of any political party. Nominees and the Commission will need to feel confident of their ability to be independent of party political considerations whatever their past party- political involvement. For this reason, all nominees are asked to respond to the questions on political involvement and activities which are similar to those used for most public appointments."

I'd say this is a tick. I can't imagine Richard voting for the Tories in recent memory, but he's been pretty harsh on Labour too.

I'm an Aussie, so I don't think I can nominate. But I really do suggest that some of the Brits on this board put together a formal nomination for RD to be a appointed to teh House of Lords. If anyone wants any help with the document, I'd be happy to do so.

14. Morality and the 'new atheism'

Comment #119835 by Atticus_of_Amber on January 31, 2008 at 9:36 pm

www.onlineopinion.com.au - second item on teh front page.

15. Morality and the 'new atheism'

Comment #119833 by Atticus_of_Amber on January 31, 2008 at 9:28 pm

Hi Guys, It seems this one was less controverisal than my last. Kelly from RationalRespodners.com also has a piece in OLO today, so it might be worth clicking over there to have a look. Cheers, Ben.

16. New atheists or new anti-dogmatists?

Comment #117291 by Atticus_of_Amber on January 28, 2008 at 2:16 pm

Hi guys,

I should out myself: I am the author of this article. People who've read my posts before might notice that this piece is an evolution of things I've written here in teh past.

Some quick points before I rush off to court.

First, I'm a little worried by the accusation of plagiarism. Either my accuser has missed the point, or I've written this very badly. The point of my article was to be a sympathetic summary of the new anti-dogmatists. So of course the vast majority of the ideas expressed in it are *their* ideas � that was the whole point of the article! I thought I made that pretty clear with all the "Dawkins argues this" and "as Harris argues thats"�

Secondly, the original article has lots of links in it. Indeed, part of my purpose in writing the article was to accomplish some "outreach" for the movement by writing what I hoped was an engaging and thought-provoking summary and defence of the new anti-dogmatists, but which was also a collection of useful links for the interested new-comer. Moreover, quite a few of my points about what the new anti-dogmatists are really saying are directly backed up by statements made by one or more of the "four horsemen" in the articles or videos to which I link.

Thirdly, the definitions of the terms I'm using are intended to be taken directly from the "Four Horsemen". When I say dogma, I intend to mean what I take Sam Harris to mean when he uses the word in "The End of Faith" and elsewhere. When I speak of religions as social institutions, I'm taking that idea directly from Daniel Dennett's subtle discussion of the good religions do in "Breaking the Spell".

Fourthly, writing op-ed pieces is a difficult and frustrating art, because one is often under quite restrictive word limits. OLO's usual word limit is 1200. They gave me a special dispensation to get this one up to 1800. And even then, I had to significantly cut down the original blog post on which this article was based. As a result, it can be amusingly frustrating to watch commentators say "but he didn't say this" or "he didn't define that term" when paragraphs doing precisely that are currently lying on my "cutting room floor". But then again, the purpose of a piece like this is to pique further interest in readers and get then to chase down these issues themselves.

Fifthly, the distinction between religions and dogma is one I've taken from the discussion towards the end for the second hour of the Four Horsemen video. The part where Dennett and Harris make it clear that, even in their perfect world, they wouldn't want to see the churches empty on Sundays - though they would want to see them be very different churches ("denatured churches, by some people's lights" says Dennett at one point). I link to this video in the original article. (It's interesting that Richard Dawkins seems a little unsure as to whether he agrees with Harris and Dennett during the discussion. I'd be very interested to hear his views on this issue.)

Finally, I have another article coming out on the same site on Friday, rebutting the various versons of the "how can you be good without god" argument many theists use against atheists. I have a few more articles planned for the next few months. There has been a paucity of pro-Four-Horsemen advocacy in the Australian media (and a lot of very misinformed or dishonest criticism) and I'm trying, in my small way, to combat that.

17. The Moral Instinct

Comment #110841 by Atticus_of_Amber on January 13, 2008 at 12:09 am

I haven't read this yet, but I'm looking forward to it.

I've put some of my thoughts that I've previously posted here about atheism and morality into a blog here: http://smartmouthedmeddler.blogspot.com/2008/01/morality-mirror-neurones-and-new.html.

Any comments would be greatly appreciated.

18. The Group Delusion

Comment #110322 by Atticus_of_Amber on January 11, 2008 at 1:47 am

Wouldn't "The Son of God Delusion" have to be co-authored by a scientist and an historian?

I realise it was a joke, but *that* is actually starting to sound like an interesting book: Jesus, what we can know based on the historical evidence and our current knowledge of medicine, biology, etc.

19. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107552 by Atticus_of_Amber on January 4, 2008 at 6:13 pm

Another suggested quick line to rebut the Communism canard:

Communism wasn't an *opponent* of religion it was a *competitor* of religion.

20. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #104819 by Atticus_of_Amber on December 29, 2007 at 2:21 pm

Wow!

THIS is why I think Dennett is the most sophisticated and profound of the "New Anti-Dogmatists".

I seldom come away from reading a Dennett piece without having my thinking shaken up and shifted.

21. What Your Brain Looks Like on Faith

Comment #99805 by Atticus_of_Amber on December 17, 2007 at 3:13 pm

I call it a nerd-crush; but yeah, me too.

22. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #99472 by Atticus_of_Amber on December 16, 2007 at 6:09 pm

Yes 35bluejacket, the Hitch is a rhetorical warrior. With all teh advantages and disadvantages that entails.

He's a son-of-a-bitch, but he's *our* son-of-a-bitch!

23. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #99419 by Atticus_of_Amber on December 16, 2007 at 3:44 pm

joshuaslocum,

No apology required, mate.

As an occasional smoker myself, I get it.

My view is that smokers should be allowed to smoke outdoors, in their own homes and in enclosed public areas that have special air conditioning systems and special non-smoking areas. Those are the rules in most States here in Australia.

I used to think that people should be allowed to smoke in bars with impunity (indeed, that's where I've done most of my smoking). But there are occupational health and safety concerns for people who work in bars that have persuaded me, reluctantly, to my current view.

24. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #99392 by Atticus_of_Amber on December 16, 2007 at 2:37 pm

joshuaslocum, I think you're being over-sensitive and reading too much into my comments. I was *defending* Hitch there, after all.

I'll say it a *third* time: Hitch's house, Hitch's rules.

*Of course* Dennett can expose himself to tobacco smoke if he wants to.

The one things that annoys me almost as much as "political correctness" is over-sensitive reactions to it.

25. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #99385 by Atticus_of_Amber on December 16, 2007 at 2:17 pm

Look. It was Hitchens' house, so he was damn well entitled to smoke if he wanted.

However, the guy who pointed out that Dennett was a recent heart patient had a good point.

Nevertheless, Hitch's house, Hitch's rules.

Nice house too, by the looks of it...

26. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #99094 by Atticus_of_Amber on December 15, 2007 at 2:01 pm

Just adding to the chorus of gratitude to Josh (and obscured-by-clouds?) for making this happen.

27. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #98934 by Atticus_of_Amber on December 15, 2007 at 12:04 am

I've only listened to three quarters of it because, for some reason, my damn computer only downloaded 45 minutes of each hour. (Yes, I couldn't wait and listened to it while I was doing some work around the house.)

Wow. Fascinating discussion.

In many ways, though, it just confirmed my impressions of the four men.

Hitch - master of rhetorical tactics, talked a lot of sense there. But when it got to substance, he was obviously out of his league. His idea that he'd hate faith to be gone because that would mean the end of the argument illustrates both why he's such a great rhetorician, and why he lacks substance compared to the other three.

RD - still a brilliant teenager - "but is it TRUE!!" Has all the benign naiveté required of the truly great scientist.

Dennett - this man so often seems to be wisdom personified. So reasonable, so decent.

Sam Harris - Still seems to say exactly what I believe, even when I haven't yet realised I believe it. While I think Dennett and Dawkins are the most substantial figures, Sam is still young and I really want to see how far he develops.

28. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #98885 by Atticus_of_Amber on December 14, 2007 at 8:30 pm

Josh says, "It was scotch on the table."

So Josh, were RD and DD having Martinis? More importantly, is Sam Harris such a my body-is-a-temple post-Buddhist that he was drinking *water*? ;)

29. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #98880 by Atticus_of_Amber on December 14, 2007 at 8:08 pm

Is the appropriate expression "geekgasm" or "nerdgasm". Either way, that's what I'm having. ;)

This should be incredible to watch. Unfortunately, I won't be able to get to it until Monday night at the earliest. :(

30. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #97113 by Atticus_of_Amber on December 11, 2007 at 12:54 pm

NMcC wrote: "I don't!! Especially since it's only a cobbled together version of his previous stupid posts. Aticus's main concern is to make everyone think that he's ever so clever, so he uses terms like '...withering away of the state' and 'dictatorship of the proletariat'. Of course, this is only a cover so that when he uses stupid insults like 'commies' and 'Red China', it might appear that he knows what he's talking about. In fact, he wouldn't know a 'commie' if one jumped up and bit him in the arse."


If other people find my posts pretentious and less than useful then please tell me, I'll stop posting.

As to McN's comments on communism, I'm tempted to say that someone's dogmas are showing. What I will say is that he is a great illustration of my point, atheists can believe many different and things and incompatible things. Indeed, one can be an atheist and still be a dogmatist.

The essence of the so called "new atheism" movement is really a "new anti-dogmatism" movement. It seems to me that it is as opposed to communism (both the theory and the practice) or Ayn Rand's "Objectivism" (my own youthful obsession, much to my shame) as it is Christianity.

31. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #96818 by Atticus_of_Amber on December 11, 2007 at 12:57 am

[deleted]

32. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #96806 by Atticus_of_Amber on December 11, 2007 at 12:05 am

I sent my letter to Fr Jonathon and got a "read receipt" indicating someone at fox has opened it. No response as yet. I don't really expect one, but it would be nice.

33. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #96798 by Atticus_of_Amber on December 10, 2007 at 11:34 pm

Thanks for your kind words, Downunder.

I agree, that the "Atheism is a belief system the way bald is a hair colour" is a great line and I wish I'd used it.

But lets not go spamming Fox.

I like to start conversations with the "other side" with the hope that I might be able to persuade them. It means that it might just happen. And even if the only person you'll persuade is a third party in the audience, that will be assisted by an obvious attempt to persuade and communicate with an entrenched opponent. So lets not go making nuisances of ourselves.

Moreover, I suspect RD might like to respond for himself. I'd like to think my reply has done some good, but its very SamHarris-esque (I'm a Sam Harris kind of guy) and RD has his own subtly different style and substance. We shouldn't go behaving badly and prevent RD from responding if he wants to.

34. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #96735 by Atticus_of_Amber on December 10, 2007 at 9:36 pm

Well, I got a read receipt that indicates that someone at fox has opened it...

35. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #96657 by Atticus_of_Amber on December 10, 2007 at 7:54 pm

Hobbit, I've emailed my response to the good father as suggested.

36. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #96623 by Atticus_of_Amber on December 10, 2007 at 7:09 pm

For what it's worth, here's how I would respond:

Dear Father Jonathon,

Though it wasn't addressed to me, I thought I'd respond to your open letter to Richard Dawkins.

On any view, Hitler and Nazism were in not "atheists". Hitler began as a Roman Catholic (which is probably where he got his anti-Semitism from). Even to the end of the Thrid Reich, Catholic priests on Vatican orders celebrated his birthday every year in church. Many of the senior Nazis were confessing Catholics and yet only one of them was ever ex-communicated, - Joseph Goebels, for marrying a Protestant. It is true, of course, that as he went on Hitler moved away from anything resembling Christianity towards a kind of sub-Wagnerian paganism. But paganism is hardly atheism.

Stalin and Moa, however, were almost certainly atheists, or shall we say "non-theists". But they were also (as far as we know) non-astrologers. Does that mean that non-astrologers or anti-astrology philosophies must bear a slice of the blame for the Gulag and the Cultural Revolution?

The problem, of course, is somehow treating atheism as if it were a coherent philosophy. Atheism is simply the non-belief in god. One could be an atheist and also believe in a lot of things - virgin births, telekinesis, reincarnation, ghosts, the superiority of the Aryan race or the inevitability of the withering away of the state after a period of dictatorship of the proletariat.

Now I do have a philosophy of sorts. But its as different from Stalin and Mao's philosophy as that of the non-astrologer Stalin was from that of the non-astroleger Pope John Paul II. My philosophy is one of reason, evidence, empiricism, science, liberalism and democracy. And no one could reasonably say that what Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union faced was an excess of reason, evidence, empiricism, science, liberalism and democracy.

Indeed it may surprise you to hear that, in a sense, my primary target isn't religion, as such. My problem is with dogma. With the belief that it is acceptable, even admirable, to believe propositions without good evidence or without good reasons for believing those propositions to be true.

The forms those dogmatically believed propositions can take are potentially infinite. One might dogmatically believe in the historical inevitability of a communist utopia, under which the State will wither away, after a brief but necessary period of a dictatorship of the proletariat. One might dogmatically believe in the existence of something called the Aryan race, in its inherent superiority to all other races, and in the inherent inferiority and perfidy of the Jewish race. One might dogmatically believe that the Creator of the universe called one's religion to convert the world or take it by force through holy war, that death in the defence of (or attempt to reconquer) lands so acquired is the greatest of all actions, and that such martyrs will go to paradise after they die to be attended by 72 virgin brides and joined in due course be all their family and loved-ones. Or one might dogmatically believe that the creator of the universe condemns contraception as a mortal sin.

What all four of these beliefs have in common is that there is very little or no evidence for them and that there is much good evidence against them. Yet all four beliefs have at times been passionately, ardently believed and acted upon by otherwise rational, sane and educated people - often resulting in those same people performing some of the most irrational, insane and barbaric acts imaginable.

Thankfully, fascist, Nazi and Communist dogmas have been so discredited that almost no-one believes them any more. That is a development to be celebrated. But as the events of New York and Washington DC and Bali and Madrid and London demonstrate; as demonstrated by the genocidally stupid anti-contraceptive policies of the Catholic church in Africa and the homicidally stupid stem-cell policies of Christian churches in the US ; religious dogmas are alive and kicking and at work in the world.

Reason and evidence and empiricism and science and liberal democracy - in short, the forces of the Enlightenment - have destroyed Communist and Fascist dogmas. Now it is time to do the same to the dogmas of religious faith.

Now, you might say that there is something about atheism that leads to barbarism, immorality and dictatorship. You might even say that there is something about atheism that leads to the dogmatism I decry.

But if you said that, you would have to explain the inconvenient fact that some of the most civilised, liberal and prosperous nations in the world are "atheistic" in the sense that a majority of the population do not believe in God.

Take Sweden. When polled, over 80% of Swedes say they don't believe in God and over 40% explicitly identify themselves as atheists. Yet Sweden has some of the lowest crime, poverty STD and teenage pregnancy rates in the world. It is a functioning liberal democracy with very little social unrest and a near 100% literacy rate. And while Sweden is the extreme, similar figures associating atheism with societal health can be found in most of the countries of western Europe as well as in Australia, Canada and New Zealand.

Moreover, even in the heavily religious United States of America, the more religious a State is, the *higher* its rates of crime, divorce, STD infection and teenage pregnancy tend to be.

Clearly, a widespread disbelief in God is not incompatible with a healthy, happy, prosperous and civilised society. (Note I do not claim here that atheism has caused these wonderful societies to be so wonderful, atheism alone is too empty for that for the reasons I give above. I cite these facts merely to show that atheism is compatible with social harmony.)

So, what's the difference between the slaughterhouses built by the Godless Commies of Russia and China and the civilized liberal polities built by the Godless progressives of Western Europe and elsewhere? The obvious answer is that Western European countries are liberal democracies committed to science and empiricism and reason and freedom of speech and debate; and Soviet Russia and Red China clearly were not. It was not its atheism per se, but the illiberalism, the undemocratic nature, the *dogmatism* of Communism that made it the architect of so much twentieth century horror.

Your Pope says that we should put our "hope for the future in God and not in technology." Here I couldn't disagree more. Our hope for the future is what has given us so much in the past - reason, evidence, empiricism, science, liberalism and democracy.

Yours in reason,

37. Atheism's Wrong Turn

Comment #95241 by Atticus_of_Amber on December 7, 2007 at 4:59 pm

Another post I've put on the TNR comments site. I'll also submit it as a letter to the editor:

[quote begins]
I *was* sympathetic to your magazine's attempt to maintain its journalistic credibility after your decision to no longer stand by the articles of Scott Thomas Beauchamp (Franklin Foer, "Fog of War", December 10, 2007). However, that sympathy was unfortunately destroyed by another article in the same issue: Damon Linker's "Atheism's Wrong Turn".

The numerous inaccuracies and misrepresentations have been pointed out by myself and others (including Professor Dennett) both online and in letters to the editor.

Your much-vaunted "fact checkers" failed to perform the trivial task of picking up a copy of Dennett's book "Breaking the Spell", looking up "education, religious" in the index, turning to pages 321-328 as directed and comparing the text there with Linker's at best shamefully lazy and at worst shamefully dishonest article.

If your fact checkers can't prevent errors as easily caught as this, how can we have confidence in your protestations of rectitude regarding the Beauchamp affair?

So I ask you: You no longer stand behind the decision to publish Beauchamp's articles. Do you still stand by the decision to publish Linker's?

[quote ends]

38. Beyond Belief 07: Enlightenment 2.0

Comment #93934 by Atticus_of_Amber on December 4, 2007 at 1:26 pm

What Sam Harris is saying is that he agrees with Atran's data but disagrees withhis interpretation of it. And I have to say that Sam's criticisms (and also those of Dan Dennett and the psychologist who spoke at AAI) make sense to me. Whenever I read or hear Atran he seems to make the most inexplicable logical leaps from his data to his conclusions.

39. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #93602 by Atticus_of_Amber on December 3, 2007 at 4:48 pm

Contrary to my fears, I think Professor Dennett did very well here. I'd go so far as to say that he did significantly better against Dousche I mean D'Souza than the Hitch did. However, in fairness to the Hitch, he did have a relatively hostile audience and Dennett here had a relatively sympathetic one.

What I'm waiting for is the Sam Harris vs D'Souza smackdown. If Sam is on form, it could be good to watch.

40. Atheism's Wrong Turn

Comment #93557 by Atticus_of_Amber on December 3, 2007 at 1:33 pm

My comment has been posted at the TNR site, as have many others critical of the article (some of which appear to have been written by people here).

But most interesting is that Professor Dennett himself has posted a rather scathing response.

41. Atheism's Wrong Turn

Comment #93354 by Atticus_of_Amber on December 2, 2007 at 8:14 pm

Given that this is going to be in their upcoming print edition, I've submitted by email the following formal letter to the editor:

Sir,

I was disturbed to find so many inaccuracies in Damon Linker's article, "Mindless argument found in godless books" (December 10, 2007).

Far from being against religious education, Daniel Dennett has called for *compulsory* religious educations (a survey course of all major religions) in all US public schools.

Far from calling all religious education child abuse, Richard Dawkins has said (in the very chapter of "The God Delusion" Linker refers to) that some level of Christian education is essential before anyone can claim to be truly literate in Western societies. It is indoctrination with horror stories about how non-believers and sinners will go to hell, and the labelling of children too young to have made up their own minds, that Dawkins calls child abuse.

Far from calling for government discrimination or persecution of the religious, Sam Harris has made it abundantly clear (in his book "The End of Faith" and in countless essays and speeches since), that what he advocates is *conversational* intolerance. We don't legally ban or discriminate against believers in astrology or UFO abductions and all liberals would oppose such bans as Harris would oppose bans on religious beliefs. But we ridicule UFO believers and astrologers - and rightly so. Harris calls for the same approach to religious belief.

And that's just a sample of the things Linker has wrong in this sloppy, lazy diatribe. Indeed, the astonishing inaccuracies in Mr Linker's article begin, as they mount up, to look less and less like laziness and more and more like bad faith. But if I were to throw that accusation around without further thought and research, I'd be almost as guilty of sloppiness as (on the most charitable view of his conduct) Linker is here.

But what disturbs me almost as much are other comments (both online and elsewhere) decrying the "New Atheists" (a horrible term they are all more or less uncomfortable with) as focussing on Christianity and ignoring Islam. To read these comments, one would think that Sam Harris did not spend at least half of "The End of Faith" criticising Islam as even more dangerous than Christianity. One would think that Dawkins did not use a picture of the Twin Towers at sunrise with the caption "Imagine No Religion" as a promotional image for his book and documentary.

And has the New Republic suddenly forgotten that *other* "New Atheist", Ayaan Hirsi Ali � a close friend of Hitchens and Harris and a woman admired by Dawkins and Dennett. Have we forgotten that Harris is the organiser of a campaign to raise funds for her security in the US now that the Netherlands has threatened to stop paying? Have we forgotten that Dawkins has talked about nominating her for the Nobel Peace Prize? That Hitchens has expressed a willingness to stand between her and anyone who would do her harm? Or that Dennett has described her rise to prominence as one of the most hopeful developments in the last five years?

The ignorance and sloppiness of this article and many other diatribes against the "New Atheists" are more worthy of Fox News than of the New Republic. You should be profoundly ashamed of yourselves.


Regards,

42. Atheism's Wrong Turn

Comment #93283 by Atticus_of_Amber on December 2, 2007 at 3:19 pm

I've submitted the following comment to the article thread (I subscribe to TNR). We'll see if the editor approves it (apparently all comments have to be approved before they're posted). Comments welcome:

[quote begins]

Far from being against religious education, Daniel Dennett has called for *compulsory* religious educations (a survey course of all major religions) in all US public schools.

Far from calling all religious education child abuse, Richard Dawkins has said (in the very chapter of "The God Delusion" Linker refers to) that some level of Christian education is essential before anyone can claim to be truly literate in Western societies. It is indoctrination with horror stories about how non-believers and sinners will go to hell, and the labelling of children too young to have made up their own minds, that Dawkins calls child abuse.

Far from calling for government discrimination or persecution of the religious, Sam Harris has made it abundantly clear (in his book "The End of Faith" and in countless essays and speeches since), that what he advocates is *conversational* intolerance. We don't legally ban or discriminate against believers in astrology or UFO abductions and all liberals would oppose such bans as Harris would oppose bans on religious beliefs. But we ridicule UFO believers and astrologers - and rightly so. Harris calls for the same approach to religious belief.

And that's just a sample of the things Linker has wrong in this sloppy, lazy diatribe. Indeed, the astonishing inaccuracies in Mr Linker's article begin, as they mount up, to look less and less like laziness and more and more like bad faith. But if I were to throw that accusation around without further thought and research, I'd be almost as guilty of sloppiness as (on the most charitable view of his conduct here) Linker is here.

But what disturbs me almost as much is the comment above decrying the "New Atheists" (a horrible term they are all more or less uncomfortable with) as focussing on Christianity and ignoring Islam. To read these comments, one would think that Sam Harris did not spend at least half of "The End of Faith" criticising Islam as even more dangerous than Christianity. One would think that Dawkins did not use a picture of the Twin Towers at sunrise with the caption "Imagine No Religion" as a promotional image for his book and documentary. One would think that the commentator has forgotten that other "new Atheist", Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Have we forgotten that Harris is the organiser of a campaign to raise funds for the security or Ayaan Hirsi Ali? That Dawkins has talked about nominating her for the Nobel Peace Prize? That Hitchens has expressed a willingness to stand before her and anyone who would do her harm? Or that Dennett has described her rise to prominence as one of the most hopeful developments in the last five years?

The ignorance and sloppiness of this article and some of the comments to it are more worthy of Fox News than of the New Republic. You should be profoundly ashamed of yourselves.

[/quote ends]

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

Comment #85453 by Atticus_of_Amber on November 6, 2007 at 12:08 am

AFAIK, Stalin wasn't Jewish. Trotsky was though.

44. Response to Theodore Dalrymple

Comment #85442 by Atticus_of_Amber on November 5, 2007 at 10:29 pm

keith wrote: "Atticus, did you use to write Batman comics?"

No, but I saw a Adam West Batman era "POW!" on my screen when I read the above-quoted zinger.

45. Dan Dennett award and speech at AAI 07

Comment #85292 by Atticus_of_Amber on November 5, 2007 at 12:36 pm

I think Dennett was talking about deflation resulting from a run on the banks.

A loss of confidence in the financial system leading to a run on the banks will cause a self-fulfilling prophecy of doom that will result in deflation. The inflation results as the money "created" by the credit system is "destroyed" by the banks calling in all their loans to pay for calls on deposits. This, I think, was the analogy he was searching for.

Explanation: By lending out deposits, banks "create" money. If those deposits are called in, the banks have to call in their "at call" loans in order to cover the calls on their "at call" deposits. This effectively reduces the money supply by "destroying" the money previously "created" by the banks' loans. With fewer dollars chasing the same amount of goods and services, average prices must fall - i.e. deflation.

46. Response to Theodore Dalrymple

Comment #85287 by Atticus_of_Amber on November 5, 2007 at 12:18 pm

Sam Harris wrote: "Dalymple is, however, the first in one respect: he is the first writer to claim that he could have produced every argument found in the "new atheist" books ("with the possible exception of Dennett's") by the tender age of 14. I do not doubt this for a moment�though this leaves me wondering how many blows to the head Dalrymple has suffered in the intervening years."

Wowza!

You know a couple of weeks ago, when I said Sam was incapable of rhetorical rough-housing? I take it back.

Holy Sh*t that was a zinger.

47. What's the evolutionary advantage of offering your place to an old woman on a bus?

Comment #84268 by Atticus_of_Amber on November 1, 2007 at 3:27 pm

Niccodeamus, I think you're missing my point.

My point is the Dawkinsian, neo-darwinist point that benefit to the tribe is, as such, *irrelevant* from the POV of evolution. The only thing that matters is benefit to the gene. Benefit to organism carrying the gene or its family or its tribe or anything else is strictly irrelevant from the evolutionary POV.

Now there are evolutionary biologists who disagree with this, most notably Richard Dawkins old foe, Steven Jay Gould. But those biologists are, as I understand it, in the clear (though respectable) minority. In the midst of a debate with theists, why buy into the question of group selection - surely one of the most controversial issues in modern evolutionary theory - when there is a perfectly orthodox neo-Darwinian gene-centric explanation which very few evolutionary biologist would take issue with?

48. What's the evolutionary advantage of offering your place to an old woman on a bus?

Comment #84266 by Atticus_of_Amber on November 1, 2007 at 3:19 pm

arogop wrote: "For Niccodeamus and Atticus- Other than the religion angle and the issues involved with that, is there any other reason you would wish for George W Bush to not enjoy the positive attributions of community living?"

I think you misunderstand me. GW Bush is at the border of my in-group/out-group distinction. I'd feel bad for him were he sick or injured in the way I'd feel bad for any human. But I must say that I get a guilty thrill of pleasure every time he gets a small part of all the humiliation he deserves for his atrocious performance as leader of the free world.

49. What's the evolutionary advantage of offering your place to an old woman on a bus?

Comment #83980 by Atticus_of_Amber on November 1, 2007 at 12:28 am

My point was that, while I can see a characteristic of respecting tribal elders being of benefit to the tribe, I'm a bit hazy on how genes that coded for such a characteristic would have a reproductive advantage - apart from the advantage obtained by general altruism described above.

I think all you need to answer the question is, first, an understanding of the distinction between an evolutionary advantage of a behaviour and an evolutionary explanation for a propensity to behave in a certain way; and secondly, the standard Selfish Gene evolutionary explanation for altruism.

50. Believe it or not, courtesy counts

Comment #83979 by Atticus_of_Amber on November 1, 2007 at 12:19 am

But why should any text or even any idea be "sacred"? Genuine question here.