1. 'Framing Science' and The Dawkins Effect

Comment #180297 by CambrianExplosion on May 14, 2008 at 2:05 pm

What he describes is pretty much what happened to me. I was a weak atheist for pretty much forever, but after watching Dawkins in Lynchburg, the recent explosion of the ID movement, and reading the God Delusion, I've become much more involved. In fact, I'm studying right now to perhaps change my career into some form of science outreach.

2. Is Liberal Catholicism Dead?

Comment #176303 by CambrianExplosion on May 7, 2008 at 6:43 am

Ansu, thanks for the detailed response. I hear what you're saying. Since you know how many modern Jews are secular, don't you think you would have the power to become a secular Catholic, much in the same way? That's all I'm talking about - if the church doesn't match your beliefs, find something that does. That may include a lot of what you already experience. In my eye, the only thing really holding Catholics together is the view that the Pope is *the one* with the authority. Remove that from the picture, and you can copy the Catholics in every way except the ways you want and be satisfied.

And congratulations on rising above in such extreme religiosity. I don't know how atheistic I would be had I been pressured into religion as a child - my parents openly let me decide for myself, despite my mother being a fairly frothy Lutheran.

3. Is Liberal Catholicism Dead?

Comment #175995 by CambrianExplosion on May 6, 2008 at 10:32 am

This is something I have /never/ understood. The whole point of religion is to have a community that shares your belief in something without evidence. If you differ from your community, you certainly have no evidence to backup your point. That's the nature of religion in the first place. Why bother "reforming" the church? Just start your own, or quit altogether.

I don't think it's a problem that young people don't stick with it. Good on them for realizing the church doesn't represent them and getting out, rather than desperately trying to convince someone out of a strongly held opinion with no evidence.

If there really are so many liberal Catholics out there, they shouldn't have any problem forming a new religion. Why be afraid of the authority of the Pope? If you don't think he's correct in his interpretation of the religion, then that means he's already *not* speaking to *your* god. The idea for him is that he's in direct communication, so this difference of opinion means that these so-called "liberal" Catholics don't think he's really got the ear. So find someone who does (ha), start your own religion, and stop belly aching that your own religion does not represent you.

Or they could just grow a brain and join the people who are scientifically and logically sound...

4. Mount Vernon schools to hire investigator in Bible case

Comment #168784 by CambrianExplosion on April 25, 2008 at 10:56 am

"If they were going to do anything, they should have taken him out and told him, instead of making all this news about it, and making such a commotion."

5. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #168543 by CambrianExplosion on April 25, 2008 at 7:38 am

I'm all for freedom of speech, but this is hate speech. What if his shirt had a cute slogan about black/white segregation instead of homosexuality. Of course this student feels like it's free speech because he *thinks* homosexuality is a choice, not a state of being. This is one of those cases where we really need a voice of scientific reason in government, because not EVERYTHING can be an opinion. Some things just aren't right, or not even wrong.

6. Investigating Atheism

Comment #167067 by CambrianExplosion on April 23, 2008 at 3:25 pm

It's very clever, isn't it? It's written in a somewhat neutral tone, yet most pages seem to deliberately end on the "positives" on the religious side after discussing the "negatives" of the atheist side. And as far as I have seen so far, whenever they choose to put a memorable quote on the page, it's always something like this:

"A little philosophy inclineth men's minds to atheism; but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds to religion."
Francis Bacon

Or like this:

"Atheism... has generally taught that both individual human beings and (eventually) humanity as a whole have no purpose in the universe, and that they will be definitively annihilated in the course of time..."

I mean, come on! That last one is not even attributed!

The surprising truth is that atheism.about.com is far better at describing atheism than this site.

7. The simple falsehood at the heart of Expelled

Comment #158400 by CambrianExplosion on April 10, 2008 at 12:46 pm

It's a good post from Dr. Myers, but it misses the issue for a lot of religious people - that Darwinism /also/ implies that humans are part of nature and that the same natural process applies to them. Look at all the anti-evolution claptrap where some preacher screams that his parents aren't monkeys. A lot of [Christian] theology states that humans are in a special class outside of the natural world. If you understand this viewpoint, you can see why religious people also like this falsehood that Darwinism leads to Nazis, etc. - in their eyes it is the philosophical continuation of viewing humans as an animal, since also in their eyes, animals exist only to be exploited by humans. It's all cock-eyed over there... I'm glad to be an atheist.

8. The books that inspire me

Comment #157501 by CambrianExplosion on April 9, 2008 at 7:39 am

plastictowel,

Both are correct - the Atkins book is from 1981, and he wrote a follow-up in 1992.

9. Richard Dawkins: 'Growth in creationist beliefs a problem for schools'

Comment #156257 by CambrianExplosion on April 7, 2008 at 7:44 am

hungarianelephant, that may be true but isn't part of the problem how the attitude toward what parents wish to teach their children - such as YEC - is softening? Rather than a firm "no, that's wrong," we now must mollycoddle those with beliefs counter to the available evidence. IIRC, was there not recent legislation that would allow a student to receive a passing grade as long as his incorrect answers were justified by a religious tradition? I.e., you could write "6000" for your answer on the Earth's age as long as you also write "* I am a Christian."

The combination of increasing magical thinking, as well as our liberalization and gone-too-far multiculturalism, have in a way formed a crucible.

10. Seven new deadly sins: are you guilty?

Comment #141988 by CambrianExplosion on March 11, 2008 at 2:08 pm

"the excessive accumulation of wealth by a few"

Interesting - so the catholic church itself is complicit in a mortal sin? To whom does the Pope confess?

11. Banned From Church

Comment #115092 by CambrianExplosion on January 23, 2008 at 2:34 pm

"A lot of times, flocks aren't willing to submit or be obedient to God," he said in an interview before a Sunday evening service. "If somebody is not willing to be helped, they forfeit their membership."

Translation:

Not everybody wants to do as I say, so I claim that my will is God's will and have them cast out of my church.

Why don't people see through this crap?

12. Tests of faith over 'The Golden Compass'

Comment #83501 by CambrianExplosion on October 30, 2007 at 8:28 am

(Possible spoilers, don't read this if you care about that.)

I'm getting tired of the cooked-up controversy over this series. I read them with fervor, having recently discovered them, hoping that they would be a Secular Narnia. I read reviews praising these books for their secular agenda, and reviews (of course) trashing them for their... secular agenda. In other words, I was really hoping to find a fantastical story that presented a skeptical/atheist world view.

Well, my expectations were dashed. This is not that. This book is not for skeptics. I could barely stomach a large part of the 3rd book because of all the metaphysical crap in it, and the religious terminology. The villain in the story even has a biblical name. So let's see... when sentient dust (!) globs together enough, it creates an angel (!), and human evolution (the adaptation of sentience) is from the interaction of these particles and our skull shape (!). Yes, there's a lot of bull to swallow. The book essentially AFFIRMS Christianity, while rebuking restrictive, intolerant forms of it, like Fundamentalism.

Responding to the Christians angry about Pullman killing God: Yes, he kills God. But did you bother to read the story? He was an impostor who long since usurped power from the real God, dictating the erosion of human freedom and liberty. He was an evil impostor god! I mean, the real "god" happens to die by accident at the end too, but so what... ;)

Anyway, the point is, there's no controversy here. The people who hate this book are the ones who see it planting the seed of independent thought, rather than blind submission. The enemy in this book is blind unthinking submission and corrupt authority, not religion per se.

EDIT: I feel that I should add that I really enjoyed the series (except that one part of book 3). It's just no Skeptic's Narnia. Like Thrall posted, all sci-fi/fantasy has hoo-ha. I just wasn't expecting it, based on how the book is billed.

13. '55 'Origin of Life' Paper Is Retracted

Comment #81862 by CambrianExplosion on October 25, 2007 at 10:07 am

sidfaiwu, honestly, no it does not. Hence the word "schism." There are no "schisms" in science - a particular conclusion is never right in perpetuity unless it really is ultimately correct. Otherwise, as evidence and understanding develops, all conclusions are suspect.

Comparatively, in religion, if someone reaches a different "conclusion," then this difference in dogma can only be accounted by splitting the members into those who agree and those who don't. And since there's no evidence or logical system, these lines are arbitrary.

14. Root and Branch

Comment #73593 by CambrianExplosion on September 25, 2007 at 11:44 am

Pretty good article. I was hoping he would also put in the end, "who designed the designer?" I like this logical face-off: *something* 'came into existence' - a designer or the Universe. Except that the Big Bang, Evolution, and related theories have evidence to back them up, and are actually simpler to boot. They are "recursive," not "regressive." Are they the end-all theories of what happened? No. But they explain a lot more. I particularly like the way the author talks about "living" science, versus degenerate or "dead" science.

++ to the rambling, though.

15. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #72208 by CambrianExplosion on September 20, 2007 at 2:26 pm

Translation:

"Dawkins refutes other versions of God, but not MY God. My God is the RIGHT one, not one of these incorrect, illogical versions that is so easily refuted. You should read Dawkins so you can understand how wrong you've been and how right I am."

There, much shorter.

16. Another view

Comment #66186 by CambrianExplosion on August 29, 2007 at 7:47 am

Another person who fails to understand science. The whole point of homeopathy having no greater benefit than placebo is what allows it to be dismissed as quackery, or that its claims are true.

That people get a benefit from it - statistically the same as placebo - is not relevant in determining whether the principles behind it are correct.

It seems as though the author suggests that we sit back and believe, even in the face of evidence, that something is true in hopes that future experiments will vindicate our beliefs. That position is valid when there is no data, but the more data there is, the more preposterous the position.

That's really the whole point of The God Delusion and Dawkins' current work as I understand it. It's not that we can say definitively, but there are "shades of probability." And with every data point and study released on homeopathy, it looks probable that it's quackery. Get over it!