1. Are Darwin's Theories Fact or Faith Issues?

Comment #121947 by Michael on February 4, 2008 at 11:47 am

As a retired surgeon I must express my profound embarrassment at Simmons woeful ignorance of basic biology. It is a sad fact that medics are not taught the really deep issues of biology and therefore miss out a lot.

Apropos some of Steve Zara's pertinent observations, it is interesting to speculate how far H sapiens was down the road to speciate. As a global species we were bound to speciate with time, but for the development of technology and wide travel this is now unlikely. More likely we will be the cause of the next mass extinction!

2. The OUT Campaign has its own Flea!

Comment #107443 by Michael on January 4, 2008 at 2:21 pm

Dodger, I agree with al-rawindi. Atheism is not a belief system. It is merely disbelief of religious ideas.

At no time do I suggest that there is any truth in any religion, save some aspects of Buddhist philosophy. I wish to try and explain its prevalence despite complete lack of evidence in support.

Religions started with early culture and have persisted to this day, evolving the while. I suggest that this type of behavior has a genetic basis and is not simply intellectual misfiring.

We are very similar in our group behavior to that of a troop of baboons. Nearish relatives. Religion is a cultural gloss which comes with language and therefore abstract ideas.

3. The OUT Campaign has its own Flea!

Comment #107425 by Michael on January 4, 2008 at 1:30 pm

Steve Z. My apologies for not addressing your second comment. I agree with Stephen Fry's remark, but I would argue that biologically, religions played a significant evolutionary role, perhaps even now.

They are ubiquitous and like us, evolve to fit the culture that produces them. They are very much about clan scent, identity and cohesion within large and often disparate members of the clan. This gives the clan considerable strength against competitors and the environment. It is also about power and dominance.

The Kings of England, until recently derived all their power directly from the catholic version and then the anglican model. Their authority came from god. No question!

If the gift of authority is supernatural it is less easily deposed and if it explains everything else so much the better.

Just look at the power struggles between the two most numerous proselytising religions which goes on even today.

Religious expression is likely to be polygenetic with some showing it strongly e.g. the archbish of Canterbury, despite lack of evidence for belief. Those on this site will have few or even no religious alleles, which is why we can't feel what many acolytes believe!

apropos your last post, I will ask RD to try and get Alan Grafen to do the mathematic model. Nothing ventured nothing gained! You might find the altruism model more comfortable than wasps!

4. The OUT Campaign has its own Flea!

Comment #107371 by Michael on January 4, 2008 at 12:33 pm

Steve Z. The sexual distribution model would be very similar to the Digger wasp models used in the the Extended Phenotype. Non breeding males contribute to the strength, stability and productiveness of the 'clan' without wasting time soliciting breeding females and competing with other breeding males for mating privileges, some of whom would seek and spend a lot of effort on the 'Presidential' position, . The stable percentage would depend on whether we are really monogamous as a species which I doubt. Without doing the maths I would suggest about 25% +/- 10%.

5. The OUT Campaign has its own Flea!

Comment #107188 by Michael on January 4, 2008 at 8:58 am

Steve Zara. I complement you on your splendid and gentle demolition of the spurious logic on this thread and, in particular, the Artful Dodger's earlier post.

Qua homosexuality. I'm sure you are right that there is a strong genetic basis and persuing the arguments of the Extended Phenotype, it is fairly easy to produce an evolutionary stable model of 'sexual preference' in herd animals such as us. Our sexuality is no different from many other mammal species living in large groups.

Again following the thesis of the EP, I believe that the humans are genetically predisposed to creating 'religions' to enhance clan 'scent' and cohesion. One can make a case for religion being an important part of our evolutionary 'success'.

Most, if not all, religions facilitate the expression of dominance genetics and some enable those that have strong altruistic genes also to express those. Islaam and Christianity are very much about wielding power.

Doesn't make them any righter, but it does suggest that we non believers do need to offer some of the things that religions offer but in an intellectually coherent way. But I don't have the solution.

6. CBC News: Sunday - Richard Dawkins

Comment #101455 by Michael on December 20, 2007 at 11:36 am

gkkalai. It is not false to say we humans evolved from apes. We are great apes and share very close genetic affinity with Bonobos in particular, but also the other apes with whom we share a tolerably recent common ancestor.

I think RD is wrong to use the phrase misfiring for philanthropy or altruism. We share altruistic genes found in many social species for the reasons he gave, that until recently those around us were likely to be kin or individuals we would meet frequently and could reciprocate.

We have yet to lose those genes that govern altruism (and they are not specifically tuned to kin). Therefore we can express altruistic behaviour to any who trigger the response. It is simply part of our evolutionary heritage. No doubt there will are endorphin like responses in the brain triggering altruism and rewarding the response.

7. Interview with Richard Dawkins: On Christmas

Comment #101382 by Michael on December 20, 2007 at 9:36 am

Paula Kirby (aka NB), you certainly lightened some of the rather sour and anally retentive comments on Richard's apparent hypocracy singing a carol or two at Christmas.

We musn't forget that Christmas was originally a pagan winter festival to lighten the bleak midwinter, usefully hijacked by incoming Christians and still very much part of of England's cultural heritage. So if there is a party why not sing along. I wish I could but have yet to hit the right note when required. By contrast RD has a good singing voice and is always in tune!

I shall join the gathering around our village Christmas tree this evening, on the green, with the children, to have a mince pie, drink a glass of doubtful wine and attempt a carol or two.The local vicar will be there and will know I don't mean a word of it.Just an expression of village community spirit.

This is quite different to going to a church service and saying the Nicene creed.That is hypocracy. Bonzai, in his recent post certainly echos my views on the the beautiful art and music the has been commisioned religious bodies.

8. Bill Moyers interviews Jonathan Miller

Comment #87577 by Michael on November 12, 2007 at 2:10 pm

It is splendid that Jonathan Miller's series is to be seen in the US. It portrays belief as quite unnecessary and in such a gentle articulate way. It is neither strident nor mocking, but leaves religions as intellectually barren.

Phasmagigas, you obviously like pomegranates while I dislike them. I keep trying but find their astringency defeating. My loss, your gain. But it emphasises that humans are diverse creatures and while we seem to share the same lack of religious belief, many genuinely need religion.

Religions are of course man made and because of this provide something needed for so many despite the total lack of evidence or intellectual credibility. For those who espouse religion it gives the 'sheep' a comfortable haven, the power hungry a means of exercising power over the 'flock', for those with political grievances and excuse to do dastardly deeds and for those seeking easy money a ready source of income. For a few it motivates them to do great good.

I would therefore suggest that believers need to be offered something other than excoriation of their belief systems. It is not patronising to acknowledge that for many religion provides something the disbelief cannot, notwithstanding the flawed intellectual base. To defeat religion non theists must provide a 'comfortable' alternative. We cannot say you must like pomegranates.

9. Excerpt from 'The Portable Atheist'

Comment #87513 by Michael on November 12, 2007 at 10:44 am

Elegant. I must request the book.

10. I didn't know the FLEA CIRCUS was back in town!

Comment #84946 by Michael on November 4, 2007 at 10:14 am

Well, at least the publishers are laughing all the way to the bank.

Sad that so many of our species cling to irrational belief and appear to need to in the face of no good evidence.

11. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #80139 by Michael on October 20, 2007 at 6:59 am

This was no contest. Game set and match to Hitch.

What intrigues me is why a man like McGrath, who is not unintelligent by most standard measures, manages to believe what he does. He goes through intellectual contortions to justify what to us, on this thread, is quite unjustifiable. We do ourselves a disservice however to dismiss the McGraths are stupid or naive.

Many must have a deep psychological need, which the fact of our evolution cannot meet. Perhaps this has a genetic base and since we are genetically diverse some have a greater need for religion than others.

Biologically one can argue that the human capacity to create religious myths enabled large strong clans to develop, which in turn were competitively successful. The power of the Kings of England, the rest of Europe, was 'direct from god' and therefore absolute. This gave them great power and is something that has only fairly recently been superseded! Now just look at the power wielded by the mullahs in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

12. Honest Mistakes or Willful Mendacity

Comment #69299 by Michael on September 10, 2007 at 11:50 am

TGD is not a gentle condemnation of religions. He shows them all to be intellectually empty. If you kick the believers 'where it hurts most' you can't expect the articulate to take it lying down. The gloves are off and the Cornwells are going punch below the belt whenever possible. Why not distort the truth, for after all isn't that what religions do, isn't it?

RD cannot be surprised, for all his flees need their religion. We can only be sorry for them.

13. Against All Gods, by A C Grayling

Comment #36841 by Michael on May 2, 2007 at 1:37 pm

I like the jellyfish but I think I prefer the butterfly. No wetsuit.

Steve Mading raises the confusion of the 'how'/'why' questions because why so readily leads to nonsequitors, particularly with science.

Just occasionally why is appropriate. For example why did Caucasians lose their skin pigment and retain the infantile ability to handle lactose, in the short time our species migrated from Africa. The powerful driver was the need to maximise vitamin D absorption, in sunless climes, because a rachitic pelvis was lethal to mother and baby.

I wish religion was in its death throws. This week I learned from a Sri Lankan UN economist that the good christians, of all shades who are running tsunami aid in Sri Lanka, are exchanging the aid for conversion. A bag of rice and you must come to church! Muslims are just sticking to their coreligionists. Don't waste time on the infidel. Nice one. Get them while they are down.

14. Snake Oil and Holy Water

Comment #28204 by Michael on March 28, 2007 at 10:37 am

Well done Geoff. You found quantum feminism! A speed read reveals a long nonsensical diatribe, I think trying and failing to pass as intellectual. Complete bullshit like most religious texts.

15. Religion and Politics

Comment #24589 by Michael on March 7, 2007 at 1:22 pm

nvlawyer made the cardinal error in suggesting that both science and religion share faith. Faith is the preserve of the latter. Science depends upon objective evidence to prove mathematically based hypotheses.

No one knows if there is other life out there in the universe. It is however entirely probable given the evidence of our small solar system.

I hope that, at least some of the US presidential hopefuls espouse religion merely to get the necessary votes. Practical politics! No politician can afford to piss on the voters.

16. The Dawkins Confusion: Naturalism ad absurdum

Comment #23746 by Michael on March 2, 2007 at 12:13 pm

A tour de force in obfuscation. Why is it that philosophers are so able to gyrate around the mulberry bush so rapidly that they lose their tails. Words change their meanings and non sequiters abound. Why is Plantinga's god the right one and no doubt he was created in his imag?

So god is simple, like Plantinga, I suppose or simpler? I suppose if god was a simple slime mould it could have created a very complex universe or indeed myriads of universes.

Please Platinga produce evidence for yor version of god. Something people can get their teeth into. In the absence of evidence god remains vanishingly improbable at least as proposed by the many worshippers.

17. The questions science cannot answer

Comment #21656 by Michael on February 10, 2007 at 11:57 am

Steven Mading put his finger on the problem with the McGraths of this world. Sadly they must ask the WHY question, which inevitably leads to an omnipotent sentience, molded to their liking and producing the comfort and 'meaning' they crave. The HOW doesn't satisfy.

I suspect this is, for some, hard wired in there brain and not purely programming. One day with better functional imaging of the brain we may find out how this happens.

18. We all fund this torrent of Saudi bigotry

Comment #21240 by Michael on February 8, 2007 at 7:45 am

Johann Hari is a very perceptive journalist and an atheist to boot. Islaam is as he portrays, a frightening religion that has not been modified by any 'enlightenment'. Not only is it persistently brutal but it is so closely integrated with politics and power. The mullah at the head of Hizbollah or Muqtadah al Sadr (sp?) in Iraq show that religion and political power one and the same. As for Saudi; petrodollars are preparing for universal Islaam and the Wahabi version at that. Western democracies had better watch out.

19. A Culture of Faith, Devoted Yet Complex

Comment #19344 by Michael on January 26, 2007 at 10:28 am

I'm rather late on this thread! I was deeply impressed by the Haggards performance in 'The root of all Evil'. He came across as an extremely nasty, manipulative, cynical, power and money hungry piece of work.
Like many others, I rather disagree with nine9s that RD was arrogant during his interview with Haggard. What got up his nose was Haggard's deliberate, dishonest, patronising peddling of the lie that evolution is random. I've known RD most of his life and he doesn't anger quickly though he can be a bit tetchy with sloppy argument from those who claim to know better, like Haggard.

20. Halting progress

Comment #16915 by Michael on January 9, 2007 at 3:17 pm

Hear Hear. And yet the same paper publishes tripe about ID a aserious bit of biologic thought.

21. Halting progress

Comment #16914 by Michael on January 9, 2007 at 3:15 pm

22. Intelligent design is a science, not a faith

Comment #16913 by Michael on January 9, 2007 at 3:12 pm

Well well. Does Richard Buggs have faith? If so he starts with a false premise and tries to reason his way round the data.

The data supporting the Darwinian hypothesis is overwhelming compared to any for intelligent design. Why does the Guardian pub;ish this rubbish?

23. Reason, Unfettered by Faith

Comment #16911 by Michael on January 9, 2007 at 3:01 pm

Despite Krauss'lukewarm review of TGD, this article is a clear and closely argued piece to keep religion out of science in Harvard.

It is clear that his audience is very different from that that of TGD and Harris' books.In his academic circles it is necessary to know the 'enemy' well to counter their academic arguments gently and concisely. To tell them that they are simply arseholes is counterproductive. A cudgel might be the right tool for the Ted Haggards of this world but not academic theologians.

I therefore rather disagree with Zoro. To counter the cleric you must understand him (seldom her). Reason,at least in some of the many definitions offered, is essential in the interpretation of scientific data and planning the next experiments to test the hypotheses suggested by the data. This same reasoning must be used to prevent religion becoming a core part of Harvard or any other academic institution.

I also think Quinne is being too simplistic by suggesting that a false premise allows any conclusion. I would agree that the conclusion has to be wrong but reason does not allow any conclusion. It is dangerous to think that people like the pope are unintelligent. Wrong yes, but stupid no.

24. Pat Robertson: God told me of 'mass killing' in 2007

Comment #16001 by Michael on January 4, 2007 at 6:09 am

Well praise the lord that he has such an able mouthpiece as this pillock. Most people dishing out this stuff get banged up in a padded cell for their own good.

And to think there there are hundreds paying this man to say such tripe. In any event his predictions are so vague and so likely (except the nuclear one) that they are nothing startling.

25. If they preach the cause of the poor, they're my people

Comment #15846 by Michael on January 3, 2007 at 10:26 am

Oh dear, Neal Lawson is mixing apples and oranges and comming up with something short of a fruit salad.

Being a politico I am sure he is right that such people are power hungry and not always ethical.

He is quite wrong however to blame folk like RD and TGD for an increase in greed. There are many religious people who do good and are altruistic but the same goes for non theists.

TGD is about intellectual truth and Lawson misses this central point. RD goes on to point out that religions can produce some pretty sinister attitudes and behavior in its adherents. RD is certainly direct but neither facile or strident.

26. Executing Saddam Hussein was an Act of Vandalism

Comment #15843 by Michael on January 3, 2007 at 10:12 am

I tried to post this a while ago but it went awol so sorry if it appears twice.

There are umpteen reasons for not executing Saddam but keeping him for research is not one of them. a) a prisoner has his rights and b) RD has a very touching faith that psychologists and psychiatrists could unearth anything new or useful which is not already in the public domain. The Nazis incarcerated yielded very little.Tyrants leave a huge footprint for retrospective study.

The 'allies'have already meddled enough in Iraq and it would be a bit rich to interfere again with Iraqis following their own law.

I am pleased that at least the UK government publicly said that they opposed the death penalty.

US states continue to execute hundreds annually having kept their prisoners on death row for eons. A particularly cruel double punishment. So perhaps the US could not call the kettle black.

27. Letter From America: Atheists throw down the gauntlet

Comment #15841 by Michael on January 3, 2007 at 9:50 am

I hope Bernstein is wrong in his prediction. He is certainly wrong to suggest that Xian fundementalists are not violent.

28. America's Holy Warriors

Comment #15808 by Michael on January 3, 2007 at 6:13 am

If Chris Hedges is right, what he portrays is very worrying.

Power is so addictive. After the first World war Europe and Britain, in particular, were caught with their trousers down as the Nazis consolidated their power and rearmed Germany.
In the early 30s many ?most Britons applauded what Hitler was doing for Germany. How wrong they were.

The Xian right could easily acquire real power in the early guise of doing good for the USA. Once in power who knows what would happen. Armageddon?

29. God's Enemies Are More Honest Than His Friends

Comment #15430 by Michael on December 31, 2006 at 9:10 am

Comment 44 Nazgul
"and so come more Jesus camps and church schools"

And there will be more 'hell camps'. I am told they are part of the evangelical menu, so that kids can be sent to have the shit frightened out of them, should they dare stray from the gospel.

If that isn't serious child abuse what is?

30. Woman beaten on Jerusalem bus for refusing to move to rear seat

Comment #15170 by Michael on December 29, 2006 at 9:12 am

Bravo Miriam, She certainly has balls!

This is just the sort of nonsense produced by religious belief. Mad ideas inducing mad behavioiur

31. God's Enemies Are More Honest Than His Friends

Comment #15166 by Michael on December 29, 2006 at 9:01 am

Sam Harris' article is a wonderful model of clarity. In the face of such logic how can the religious hang on to their nonsense with such certainty?

The persistence and prevalence of religion (pace Australia thankfully from some of the posts) must have some biologically adaptive yield. I would suggest three possible routes.

1) Some need, yearn for the emotional crutch of a god and simply can't cope without it. this can go for some academics even, who go through the tortuosity of theology to try and rationalise the irrational.

2) It can be a powerful tool for group control. A part of a clans identity. Good for wars over the ages. 9/11 and the Haj are current examples.

3) It is a powerful tool for the power brokers to garner power (money) and influence. The 'late' Ted Haggard interviewed by RD is a good example. watching him manipulate his congregation was a nasty exercise of holding power and influence and clearly making loads of money. The Papacy is very wealthy by milking the poor!

Doesn't make them true but makes intellectual argument unlikely to win the day before we create the next major extinction, sadly.

32. Response to Richard Dawkins' Criticisms in The God Delusion

Comment #13237 by Michael on December 16, 2006 at 10:22 am

I think we do ourselves a disservice if we merely laugh at someone like Ricahrd Swinburne who is both likeable and has an agile intellect. We need to try and understand where such folk come from to counter effectively their arguments.

Swinburne has to start from a profuond belief in a vanishingly improbable omnipotent entity which created the universe. From here he has to invoke elegant semantics to cope with free will, and both human evil and natural disasters. His charm and elegance is however wasted because the initial premise cannot be correct.

Swinburne then argues closely that too much evidence would be bad for those of faith. This is essential to justify faith as there can never be any scientifically credible evidence for the impossible.

Swinburne counters the argument that a supernatural omnipotence must be vastly complex by saying no. god is simple. Well OK but he argues that we are simple even if our brains are not. He is however wrong on both counts. We and all living creatures are extremely complex in contrast to the output of our brains. The latter are pretty good computers but less complex than the whole organism which supports it.

33. Let's Be Rational

Comment #13116 by Michael on December 15, 2006 at 3:48 pm

Kimpatsu (12860) made an interesting observation. Daniels, alias Dalrymple is a medic and takes the rather patronising position that he does not need religion but it is good for his patients.

As a fellow medic myself I was always suprised how little fundemental biology my colleagues knew. They always thought that Homo sapiens was outside evolution. It merely applied to 'animals'.

The medical slant also explains Dalrymple's lengthy discussion on IVF. You can bet your bottom dollar that Dawkins was fully aware of all the nuances Dalrymple proposed and more before drawing he conclusions he did.

34. A man who believes in Darwin as fervently as he hates God

Comment #13114 by Michael on December 15, 2006 at 3:26 pm

I was so incenced by Liddles article that I sent the following repost to the Spectator. Not suprisingly they haven't printed it! Seeing Liddles contribution this week I can see that he really is the Tory party at prayer.

Sir.
Why is it that critics of Dawkins and his recent book, imbued with faith, attack by innuendo but without evidence. They attack the messenger and not the message. Rod Liddle's interview is one such and it starts in the first paragraph; "his latest wife, the actress Lalla Ward……." Is he gratuitously questioning Dawkins' domestic stability and might the pot be calling the kettle black? In any event, domestic state does not impinge on the thesis that religions are not based on evidence.

Liddle goes on to criticize The God Delusion as a book of rhetoric and not science. He is wrong in that there is plenty of science, but religions are based on rhetoric and so it is hardly surprising that Dawkins uses religious rhetoric for some arguments.

Liddle makes another egregious error in suggesting that Darwin's theory of evolution is 'flawed and careworn'. It is not. For professionals it remains as fresh and coherent as the day it was written. There is so much evidence in support of the theory that it is now as much scientific fact as Newtonian physics. Ever more research data serves to reinforce the original concept, but refine the detail, much as physics has developed from Newton through Einstein to Quantum. The very nature of science is to progress, refine, refute, develop and enlarge our understanding of the world and space. If Liddle doubts the mechanics of evolution, he might like to consider why Northern races of humans have lost skin pigment and why human faces are so different across the world. Our current species of Homo sapiens migrated out of Africa as recently as some 40,000 years ago and yet so much has changed so quickly. Why? He might also like to consider how long it might have taken for humans to have actually speciated again; something happily prevented by widespread travel and migration these last few hundred years.

Liddle goes on to say that Dawkins clings to the creed of Darwinism like the true believer. Wrong again. Dawkins merely adheres to evidence, for which there is much in biological science but none for religions. The latter alone depends on faith and creeds.

'Relationships indeed' sneers Liddle when Dawkins discusses the changing Zeitgeist as if religions haven't evolved over time. How many different sects of Christianity and Islam are there today? All catering for the imperatives of their various adherents, as wishes have changed over 2000 years. Yet all professing the absolute truth. Religions are themselves a product of the Zeitgeist and move with it.

Liddle repeats the hackneyed contention that leaders without faith have propounded the most and greatest evils. Oh yes! Where is the evidence? Stalin yes, but nearly all the rest have been religious adherents including Hitler and Genghis Khan. Even Blair and Bush, devout Christians, deliberately deceived their public when invading Iraq. And isn't the indoctrination of our children with elaborate fairy stories and great guilt, serious ongoing abuse? There is no evidence that morality stems from religion but has indeed been incorporated into religion. Morality derives from biological pragmatism and simpler variants are common among many social species. It also predates the present 'great religions'.

One might ask why religions are so pervasive despite being based on so little evidence. It is probably because it provides such a powerful aid for the alpha males ruling their people. It overrides the alpha male and cannot be dismissed with the same ease as deposing the leader. It invests the leader with supernatural authority. It is also a useful means of making large groups of people cohesive. Clan or tribe size has clear advantage in defending territory against neighbours. Religion then becomes very much part of the clan scent, to use an animal analogy. A possible example of group selection and not merely a by-product of our long adolescence.

Liddle ends his piece with the 'killer question'. 'What would make you believe in God?' The question, Liddle suspects, has never occurred to Dawkins. Well, if he had followed some of Dawkins many public appearances he would realise that it is a recurrent question, which always draws a variant of the same answer. The only possible answer. Evidence. Sound objective evidence and Dawkins would change his mind as any good scientist

35. Science Gives Christians Upper Hand Over Atheists

Comment #11109 by Michael on December 3, 2006 at 6:38 am

The Ultimate Question is...

We deal with a lot of issues in life, some big and some small. But there is only one Ultimate Question ...

If you were to die tonight ...
As much as we push it out to the distant future, hide it away in hospitals, or simply ignore the thought, death will surely come.

The Bible declares, "... it is appointed for men to die once..."; (Hebrews 9:27)

then what ?
Now that's a question people try to ignore... or at least postpone. Please don't be like the fellow who planned to address it at the eleventh hour, then died unexpectedly at 10:30.

The Bible verse just quoted goes on to provide an answer: "... it is appointed for men to die once, and after this comes judgment." (Hebrews 9:27)

So what's your answer?
(Go to the URL above to click on one of the links below)

I'll go to heaven and live forever

I suppose I'll go to hell

I won't go to heaven or hell.

I don't know what will happen after I die.

http://www.mcleanbible.org/pages/page.asp?page_id=1104

36. Why Are Atheists So Angry? A Debate with Dennis Prager

Comment #10247 by Michael on November 27, 2006 at 2:53 pm

Here's the thing with Atheism. In a way, it really is another belief system. It is the belief that everything that exists can be weighed, measured, verified, logically explained, and logically argued for.

If you did not believe this, then at best you would be an Agnostic, because you would believe that some things may be unobservable, untestable, intangible, ect.

If you don't believe those things (and therefore, are not an Atheist) then you are free to believe things may exist which are not substantial, cannot be argued, and cannot be explained.

In the end, you can take all demeaning claims of a old man with a beard in the clouds, or superman, or heaven or hell, and boil them down to believing (with no proof either way) in a universe which is strictly substantial, or a universe containing elements of both the substantial and intangible. I see no burden of proof on either side to change beliefs.

37. Creating the 'Controversy' in Britain: Creationist Research Institute is on the march in the UK

Comment #8567 by Michael on November 21, 2006 at 5:21 pm

Ah, it's the old "Make an elephant turn into a dog" argument. Except this time with fruit. Apparently, in order to do "research" on a topic and reach a conclusion, you no longer need to have any knowledge of that particular topic.

38. I'm an atheist, BUT . . .

Comment #8097 by Michael on November 20, 2006 at 12:03 pm

" I'm an atheist, but religion is here to stay. You think you can get rid of religion? Good luck to you!"

The above statement may turn out to be true, but not b/c we can't exist (and much better) w/o religion. However, the distinction between religion and why mankind felt the need to invent it in the first place seems to be missing from Atheistic writings (at least from what I've read). When faced with an insecurity, we have three ways to resolve it: 1) get rid of it – build a fire at the cave opening so we're not afraid a saber tooth tiger will eat us in our sleep 2) Ignore it and remain insecure 3) Create a perception within ourselves that the insecurity is taken care of, and therefore no longer a threat (ie: make cave paintings to the animals you depend on, develop delusions and hallucinations, wait for the mother ship, start a religion!).

While religion may not be here to stay, the underlying need that gave rise to religion as a coping mechanism against a virtually species-level insecurity (which will never be eradicated unless we become omnipotent), will always be present. So, the real question in my mind is how to sooth the insecurities of the savage beast in terms of the rationality of the noble savage. But, we continue to see ourselves as separate from nature, and delude ourselves into believing that we control our instincts, the same basic instincts that all other animals have and don't/can't control (btw, IMHO, the delusion that we control our instincts is just part of a larger belief that we control nature, which is one way we try to achieve number three above). Until we face the reality that we must acknowledge and deal with our instincts, not deny them, we will always have the same need on a species level as any individual psychotic; well-developed denial and coping mechanisms that allow us to construct reality in a way we perceive as non-threatening. Hence, religious delusion. But… we all know there are better answers.

39. The Dawkins Delusion

Comment #7067 by Michael on November 17, 2006 at 1:40 am

Goodness! All this over a post by Al Mohler. Who would have thunk it! A witch hunter from way back, who has gutted the one last bastion of near-intellectual activity in Southern Baptistdom, stirring up the wrath of so many. Go, Al, go!!! Of course he has to respond this way. His whole career is based on this kind of claptrap. Got to protect the job, the pension, the position, the status.

40. The God Delusion? Part 1

Comment #6929 by Michael on November 16, 2006 at 7:59 am

If Dr. Chopra intends to argue against RD "point by point", then he should be using direct quotes from RD as those points rather than cobbling together "statements" off the top of his head.

41. Religions don't deserve special treatment

Comment #5698 by Michael on November 10, 2006 at 2:05 pm

If someone will buy me a copy of "The Root of All Evil" I will show it in my World Geography class when i teach the section on the 3 Largest World Religions and .....and .....if you promise to help defend me in court when I get sued.

:)

MIke

42. God vs. science: Can religion stand up to the test?

Comment #4965 by Michael on November 7, 2006 at 3:59 am

Please notify me when others comment on this article.

43. Atheists should be louder and prouder

Comment #3945 by Michael on November 1, 2006 at 4:29 pm

Mika writes:

"Michael, Try a more subtle approach like wearing a T shirt stating that God is a baby killing psycho motherfucker - who hates women!"

Thats an idea.....but I dont want to get fired now do I?

Mike

44. Atheists should be louder and prouder

Comment #3921 by Michael on November 1, 2006 at 1:16 pm

I had Dr. Dawkins sign my teacher name badge at Lynchburg. Yet not a single person has asked me yet if I am an atheist.

My fingers are crossed. Wait a tic...I'm not superstitious.

45. Dawkins thinks atheism will save us

Comment #3920 by Michael on November 1, 2006 at 1:12 pm

William,

Mormans are beyond weird. Watch the episode of South PArk on mormans and you will get the idea. Or go to YOUTUBE and tyle morman and South Park and sit back and have a good laugh.

Visit hell? My asbestos pants and I will be running that damn place not just visiting it if I am wrong. I dont beleive in god which means I'm taking the bad side of Pascals Wager.


Mike

46. Sermons and straw men

Comment #3216 by Michael on October 26, 2006 at 2:04 pm

I would also like to add that the consciousness raising that the reviewer was unaware of was emphatically not one of extolling the virtues of science to the public. But instead that sometimes you need a sledgehammer to do it.
And this particular book is just such a sledgehammer. The consciousness that needed raising was of the idea that someone needs to make some noise.

If americas trend towards religion shows us anything, it's that the old ways of spreading science, while not outdated, need a new edge.

47. Sermons and straw men

Comment #3149 by michael on October 26, 2006 at 1:05 am

It disturbs me to see Dawkins compared to a preacher. I know the impulse is simple and maybe even natural. One person has an issue that they would like to bring to light and therefore they label Dawkins with the titles that they give those people they are most accustomed to seeing doing something similar. Namely: Preachers. But there are many differences between Dawkins and any preacher. One main point is that Dawkins relies on evidence to further his cause and not emotion or superstition. Which preachers rely on solely.

That said, I hesitate to accept any criticism that relies on Dawkins lack of knowledge on controversial topics. This in particular goes out to commenters that have said as much. Other than Sam Harris, I can think of no other living person who has more "insight into what it means to fight the attacks on science" than Richard Dawkins. In fact I would say that he has more experience with controversy than any other person alive on this planet. And this is a very heady claim indeed.

But to the point. This reviewer is not an "idiot" as many americans like to put it in slang. He is simply unaware. If you are ignorant of a consciousness that needs to be raised, you are not likely to be one of those that understands the need to raise the consciences of others. So here I will cut the review slack.

So now I'll get to my actual critiques about the article.
This reviewers interesting and particular complaints revolve around this sentence: "At the very least I find it doubtful that constantly questioning the intelligence of ‘true believers’ will be helpful in inducing any such reader to accept Dawkins’ strongly argued thesis that both God and religion are nonsensical?and harmful."

I happen to stand in direct opposition to this statement as I am just one of those converted. We all too often regard those who disagree with us as less intelligent than ourselves. (I have found this disturbingly prevalent among some few commenters in this crowd) In opposition to this reviewer I state that many intelligent people, if they hear this message, will respond positively.
It is also a fallacy to presuppose that one book will address every type of believer out there. We must realize that every person must find their own path and that Dawkins book was never meant to convert everyone.

That said I have one more complaint. The reviewer writes this: "I don’t believe in Santa Claus, but I am not particularly proud of it." To this I respond that the reviewer has no reason to respond strongly or proudly to it. If the idea of god was not such a popular and pernicious myth then we would not have to give it such attention. Unlike the wide held belief that god is a omnipotent, benevolent, omniscient creator, Santa is believed to be a myth. Most od us here at this web site would like to relegate the idea of "god" this same standing.

This writer, like many others, I posit, is scared to be called an atheist. And for good reason. It's usually a derogatory term. But until outspoken people like Richard Dawkins break the ice, the reviewer will be stuck in the land of politeness. He may not believe in Yahweh, but in the presence of staunch believers he will not voice his opposition. If on the other hand such silly superstition were revealed to be what it was by the majority of humanity, then maybe the reviewer would be more bold.

The take home lesson is that, today only the bold will speak up in an age of superstition. Thus only those who have a potential for rabble rousing will be able to respond to the initial call. So we must not reprimand those who push the borders of knowledge for infringing on religious belief. They are obviously they few who can rise to the challenge of combating superstition. For religious belief hinges not on knowledge, but on superstition alone.

Maybe I could have ended this review of a review along time ago by saying this. But I doubt that the already skeptical of RD would have listened. The real message is still, we have no evidenvce that it's true. And truth is what we're after.

48. Beyond Belief

Comment #3144 by michael on October 25, 2006 at 11:54 pm

Anonymous...

Really? Jew reamarks as an argument? Really?

Rename yourself troll and we'll all thank you for saving us the time.

49. God knows why faith is thriving

Comment #3111 by michael on October 25, 2006 at 4:20 pm

Now to the "review".

I have serious doubts of whether or not this gentleman even read the book. He quotes one line and then goes on to erect a strawman the likes of which I rarely get to see. As one commenter mentioned before, no where does the reviewer claim to care about whats true. The entire jist is that its comforting.
(I would also like to note that this person is the writer of "The Enemy at Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11" Doubt that any of us should have expected an actual review.)

So with that in mind, I'm starting a new religion. And I want everyone to join. This is what it has going for it. There is a big god in the sky (you don't have to lose that), PLUS, you are one too! Now you're not just a petty human so you can lose all that catholic guilt! On top of this your creator loves you so much that he sacrificed his son, daughter, wife, exteneded family, and the entire population of antartica (which is why no ones there) so that you could spend eternity with him in heaven. Heaven by the way is phenominal now. You can get your close friends who were probably going to hell, into heaven simply because they know you. Now you get to save souls just by being you! Those who were the worst to you in life won't just burn in hell for all eternity; now you can choose what torments you deem fit for their punishment. You can even give it to them yourself! And right now, if you convert in the next 25 minutes, every dollar you tithe will be revisted back on you not 5, not 10, not 25, but 100 times what you gave! And just for joining we'll also give you free of charge, a reduction of the amount of faith needed to perfrom miracles from mustard seed to epiphytic orchid seed weighing only 35 millionths of an ounce!

By the reviewers reasoning I should be making alot of money very soon.

While some people may prefer comforting lies, others prefer bracing truth. It's up to us to get as many people as we can to see the truth for what it is what it can offer and to no longer settle for 7th century myths.

50. God knows why faith is thriving

Comment #3108 by michael on October 25, 2006 at 3:37 pm

Pacifier. You are a troll.

Evolution is not chance.

Children are harmed in both phisical molestion and mental abuse.
You seem to lack imaginaton. If your mother (whom we'll assume you love more than life itself) died and you believed beyond the shadow of a doubt that she would burn in hell for all eternity, do mean to tell me that a person who touched you genitals when you were young is going to be MORE detrimential to your well being?

Either you are cold and hard hearted, or you don't follow through with your beliefs.

And "brighy bright moonbat"?

This will gain you no intellectual points from anyone. Which I believe you already know and I'd like to refer you back to the top of this post to reiterate that you are only here to cause trouble.

You are a troll.