651. Enemies of Reason: Available now on DVD!

Comment #230911 by Bonzai on August 15, 2008 at 12:26 pm

Durant

A positive assertion was made by Brian: we only know of creative intelligence that has evolved.

My response: really? where's the argument for this?

I would instead ask a more fundamental question. what is "creative intelligence"?

Does it have memory? Is it capable of learning and perceiving?

It seems to me that if the answers to these questions are "yes", then it has to experience changes of state of some sorts. For example, there is a change in the creative intelligence before it knows something and after, that would be a kind of "evolution".

If the answers are "no", then I am not sure in what sense "it" is intelligent or creative.

652. Rushdie condemns cancellation of Muhammad novel

Comment #230826 by Bonzai on August 15, 2008 at 8:23 am

PJG

Suggestions?

Try to order the book from Amazon.

Don't think so.

The issue is not that the book doesn't get published, but the reason why it was canceled. It is a travesty that the publishing industry is allowed to be taken hostage by radical Muslims like that.

Random House has already given out the message of capitulation by making the initial decision to cancel the book deal and explicitly citing fear of Muslim reprisals as the reason. The damage has already been irreversibly done.

On the other hand, by all accounts the book is actually crap. It romanticizes child rape and whitewashes Muhammad. This is particularly vile because the practice of raping children in the name of following Muhammad's example is still alive and well in some Muslim countries.

http://richarddawkins.net/article,2983,The-rebellion-of-the-child-brides,Johann-Hari---Independent

It is a supreme irony that what seems to be an apologist for Muhammad ends up being censored for fear that the apology may actually provoke the crazies who are either 1) illiterate or 2) would not read pass the fact that the book describes sex scenes between Muhammad and his rape victim.

I wouldn't spend a dollar on this trashy book. I would rather have a donut,--and normally I don't eat donuts.

EDIT: We should defend freedom of speech as a principle, but it doesn't follow that we should show support for the particular speech in question (by ordering it on Amazon) Even if you think the KKK has a right to free speech on principle, you don't have to show up for a few cross burning rallies to make the point.

653. Big-brained Animals Evolve Faster

Comment #230814 by Bonzai on August 15, 2008 at 7:21 am

Muhammad was mentioned in various places of the Quran as the most perfect creation and an eternal example for Muslims to emulate. I wonder why would God be bothered to say so much about the messenger in his supposedly eternal message to all mankind. It is like someone writing a letter to a distance friend and in it he heaps praises upon praises on the mailman. If I were the recipient of the letter I would think that it has been opened and tempered with by the mailman.

654. The rebellion of the child-brides

Comment #230807 by Bonzai on August 15, 2008 at 6:59 am

OldSarum

From the interview with KM

slam is not a race, gender, or skin color; it is a set of beliefs. How can you prove something intangible? Islamic knowledge? Any non-Muslim can learn what Islam is. Robert Spencer knows more about Islam than 99% of Muslims. Besides, none of us claim to be an Islamic scholar. All we have is our word to go on. What if I claimed that Osama bin Laden is not a Muslim? How can you prove me wrong? Besides, people who support our goals do not question our faith. People who do question our faith do not support our goals, so why should we care whether they believe us or not? Muslims who feel the same way that Islam needs to be reformed know that we are Muslim and that is all that matters. We are not trying to convert religious fanatics; that would be a waste of time. We are trying to give voice to those Muslims who are sick and tired of people being murdered in the name of Islam.

Well if even I can smell that it is a (neo)con job I doubt that many Muslims would buy into it. You might as well have Fanusi pretending to be a Muslim to give it a try.

There are something more than religious dogmas that shape "the Muslim attitude", Islam itself is a big problem,--and I am not someone who is soft on it as my posts should demonstrate,-- but underneath it there are a lot of political and cultural anxieties and grievances,--no doubt many of these grievances are imaginary or self induced, but there are also real and legitimate ones the neo cons refuse to acknowledge. A non Muslim may know the Quran backward but as long as he doesn't understand these underlying anxieties, he would not be able to reach out to Muslims. I think efforts like this, for whatever purpose, may actually backfire because they come across as duplicitous, underhanded and incredibly patronizing.

655. Big-brained Animals Evolve Faster

Comment #230786 by Bonzai on August 15, 2008 at 6:16 am

There is also the question of ... what are starfish supposed to evolve into. Once a certain body structure has been established, there is only so much that can happen.

There are also mathematical constraints to the development of biological shapes and forms. See J D Murray's two volume "mathematical biology".

656. The rebellion of the child-brides

Comment #230779 by Bonzai on August 15, 2008 at 6:00 am

OLdSarum

But I can't see why anyone except genuine Muslim reformers could hope to benefit by setting up such a site.

I can't say for sure, but having have many exchanges with liberal Muslims something just doesn't smell right, both in its political slant and its stridency of tone. It could be a site operated by ex-Muslims(no longer believers). That's why I said I wanted to hear what Layla has to say about it.

657. The rebellion of the child-brides

Comment #230767 by Bonzai on August 15, 2008 at 5:46 am

OldSarum

ncidentally, this Hari piece & others like it were also published on one of the main websites of the Muslim reformers (who apparently "don't exist", according to various posters here):

There are indeed some Muslim reformers, but their numbers and influences are relatively limited, they are in general considered apostates.

I know of some such groups, but the particular one you link to doesn't even look like a real Muslim site, It smells like like someone impersonating Muslims in an attempt to "win hearts and minds".

To start, it is quite astonishing, if not completely unthinkable, for Muslims to say that the Quran is inconsistent. The reform minded Muslims would come up with liberal spins and dance around the verses, but they would never say that Allah's words are inconsistent

If it is not for the header I almost thought I was viewing Daneil Pipe's webpage or jihadwatch,--I have hung around in progressive Muslims forums for a while and I have never heard anyone lumping Arafat and Osama together as "Muslim extremists", this sounds a lot like what you would find on jihadwatch though.

Somehow I doubt that most Muslims,even the very liberal ones, would take it seriously.

I would like to hear Layla's opinions.

658. God's Warriors

Comment #230485 by Bonzai on August 14, 2008 at 5:57 pm

Laurie

No, the U.S. doesn't go to war *because* of christianity, but christianity provides a deep ideological justification for much of the superstructure of the country. Christianity functions, if you like, as an interpellative: it "calls" up, and provides legitimacy for ideological, and therefore illusory, notions of "freedom", "democracy"..

I think your connection is a bit forced.

The U.S. used WMD as the excuse, and used "democracy" and "freedom" as ideological justification for the war. Christianity may play some role in getting support in some evangelical circles, but it doesn't get any play in official propaganda.

Edited.

659. God's Warriors

Comment #230478 by Bonzai on August 14, 2008 at 5:48 pm

I believe we had homegrown Irish people doing the same for Northern Ireland.

Home grown Irish people probably have ancestral and family ties to Northern Ireland, but what tie does a Pakistani Muslim, born and raised in the U.K, have with the ME, let alone Palestine?

You can make a parallel case if you have some random Catholic from say, Poland, blowing up a train in support of the IRA.

660. God's Warriors

Comment #230470 by Bonzai on August 14, 2008 at 5:39 pm

And what do the extremist propaganda machines say? They think it IS a mission to Christianise the region- and to expand Israeli frontier

Is it news to you that these people are delusional?

661. God's Warriors

Comment #230469 by Bonzai on August 14, 2008 at 5:37 pm

Laurie and mord

Do you guys honestly believe the U.S. goes to war because of xianity? What Christianization program is in place in Iraq? Last I check a bunch of Shia fundamentalists are in power courtesy to the U.S.

662. God's Warriors

Comment #230464 by Bonzai on August 14, 2008 at 5:32 pm

Goldy

Is it religious in nature or political - to me the destruction of Israel and the return of Palestinians is more a political issue than one of religion.

If you are Palestinian, yes, it is mainly political. As I have said I disagree with Fanusi on this.

But if you are British born Pakistani, the only thing that would work you up to the extent to commit mass murder for people whom you don't know and have no tie to is religion. So yes, when home grown Muslims claim they kill for Palestine, it is 100% religion, and "Palestine" or other meaningless geographical names are just afterthoughts.

663. God's Warriors

Comment #230459 by Bonzai on August 14, 2008 at 5:25 pm

And when world leaders send their trrops to war on a pretext and with "God's permission" it is....?

It is rhetorics. If the mission is to Christianize Iraq, then you would have a point. Do they put Christians in charge in Iraq?

EDIT: And what do you make of Bosnia?

664. God's Warriors

Comment #230448 by Bonzai on August 14, 2008 at 5:17 pm

Why not Islam too?

I always say one should not confuse geopolitical strifes with critique of religion.

I argued with Fanusi over Palestine, as I don't think terrorism in the region is an Islam issue. On the other hand, when a bunch of bearded dudes tried to blow up a pub in London because "the womens there are sluts" (something to that effect), that is theology.

EDIT: When a bunch of U.K born Muslims of Pakistani origin, who had never been to the ME, try to kill a large number of fellow British citizens over "Palestine", that is Islam.

665. God's Warriors

Comment #230439 by Bonzai on August 14, 2008 at 5:08 pm

Goldy

My question remains, your refutation, to me, is a no brainer. If you wish to go into etymology, by all means do - but don't forget the nuances of the words in the different cultural settings.

What is there to refute? Some idiots don't know how words are understood in other culture.

No doubt some Christian fundies see this as a "Crusade", but that is not why the U.S. goes to war, nor is the U.S. a Christian state,

Sorry, your question is a non sequitur.

666. God's Warriors

Comment #230362 by Bonzai on August 14, 2008 at 3:17 pm

if so, why are the western forces referred to as Crusaders in the ME?

Why do people say they crusade against a disease, say hep C? Is that indicative of a Christian effort?

http://www.creativeintensity.com/smking/

Do I need to go into etymology to make a simple point? I think your question is a no brainer.

667. God's Warriors

Comment #230343 by Bonzai on August 14, 2008 at 2:50 pm

Leviticus,

The body counts are not the work of Christianity or Judaism, they are the result of "real politik".

The U.S. has never been a Christian state, nor does Christianity have much to do with policies towards the ME .

668. We need to stop being such cowards about Islam

Comment #230334 by Bonzai on August 14, 2008 at 2:47 pm

sasna

if the fundamentalists had their way, the US would be a Christian state, and ALL children would be taught it in the schools.

Other than the fringe of the fringe, not even the fundamentalists argue for a full blown theocracy. They organize and influence policies for sure, but that is still within the framework of democracy and the U.S. Constitution.

On the other hand, go to the home page of a MSA(muslim student association), most, if not all, would tell you that government does not belong to the people, it belongs to Allah,

669. The rebellion of the child-brides

Comment #230278 by Bonzai on August 14, 2008 at 1:52 pm

Fanusi,

The Quran is a horrible enough book, but my understanding is that many of the most outlandish Muslim practices actually come from the Hadith, while the Quran is supposed to be God's word, Muslims are not obliged to follow the Hadith, except for traditional reasons. There are also disagreements over the authenticity of books in the Hadith.

I do agree that there is much less room to cherry pick over the Quran than the Bible.

One thing I notice in my debates with liberal Muslims (I mean Muslims who are theologically liberal, not secular "Muslims" who couldn't care less about religion) is that they almost never come out to denounce certain Islamic practices such as stoning adulterers and killing homosexuals on principle. They would use some lawyerly sophistry to argue against the practices, but never the principle.

The argument may be that the Quaran makes it so difficult to convict that in practice these punishments should never be carried out if the true standards of Sharia are met, or that these punishments can only be meted out in a "true" Caliphate under the proper authority, but since such a thing never existed so it is a purely academic question. Another technique is hair splitting over Arabic words, like saying the Quran doesn't really mandate killing homosexuals, but only those who practice sodomy (homo and hetero), but that since you can't convict without witnesses, anyone should be scot free in practice if true Sharia is followed etc.They would add that Muhammad instructed Muslims to be obey the law of the land if they don't live in a "true " Caliphate, as a result, Muslims should be good citizens etc.

These are basically liberal minded, decent people and they mean well, but their arguments are weak and morally cowardly.

670. The rebellion of the child-brides

Comment #230239 by Bonzai on August 14, 2008 at 1:11 pm

Well that's very interesting but I'm not sure about that sentence - it would surely depend on the type of unification.

That is true. In the examples you gave the unifications are carried out under the idea of pluralistic democracy, which is not the same as most unifications in history. Historically, unifications always means a monopoly of power as well as ideology.

671. The rebellion of the child-brides

Comment #230224 by Bonzai on August 14, 2008 at 12:51 pm

bamafreethinker

Perhaps bible criticism, made possible by the freedom of the press, and accessible by literacy (education) in the 17-19th centuries is what paved the way for the softening (de-fundamentalism) of Christianity. People like Thomas Hobbes, Benedict Spinoza, Richard Simon, Hermann Samuel Reimarus, David Strauss, Ernst Renan, Johannes Weiss, Albert Schweitzer broke new ground much to the chagrin of the church..

But the freedom of the press would not be possible unless the Church's power has already been eroded.

I think Europe was able to break loose from Christianity mainly because of its political fragmentation. There were multiple, competing centers of powers coexisting in a stable configuration: the Church and the kings and princes. This created the cracks where free floating intellectuals could survive and florish.

This is a delicate balance, it wouldn't do if they were at constant, all out war, in that case you would get only destruction and carnage. It had to be some kind of "dynamic equilibrium".

In contrast, grand unifications always leads to stagnation and single track thinking.

We find that pattern in other civilizations as well. For example, China experienced an explosion of free thinking and a bloom of philosophical ideas during the "Spring-Autumn" period (around 7 - 5 BC). During that time "China" was fragmented but stable (as oppose to all out civil war) with multiple poles of power. Intellectuals would travel around to different kingdoms to sell their ideas to competing princes.

This vibrant intellectual scene ended after grand unification and the eventual establishment of Confucianism as the "official" ideology. I always think that the cause of the China's downfall was that it unified too early, and it had too much time to fine tune the state into a deeply entrenched monolith.

I think in Europe the stable but fragmented period lasted long enough to allow ideas and economics to grow to such a degree that they finally undermined the ideological hegemony of the Church irreversibly.

This is only a half baked theory, my knowledge of history is limited to only a very "big picture". I wonder what historians such as Cartomancer or Philip1978 have to say about it.

672. Poll: Should the motto 'In God We Trust' be removed from U.S. currency?

Comment #230214 by Bonzai on August 14, 2008 at 12:35 pm

How about "In Jesus we trust?" :)

673. God's Warriors

Comment #230206 by Bonzai on August 14, 2008 at 12:29 pm

God's warrior

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCh2FXzD6R4

:)

674. We need to stop being such cowards about Islam

Comment #230137 by Bonzai on August 14, 2008 at 10:39 am

Nathanial_BB

Female Genital Mutilation aka female "circumcision".

Not to be confused with FSM (the flying spaghetti monster) :-)

675. We need to stop being such cowards about Islam

Comment #230135 by Bonzai on August 14, 2008 at 10:37 am

Donald

. But I wasn't aware of the figures you quote. Do you have web links? What is the status of the figures? How contentious, or accepted, are they?

Regardless what the numbers are, Fanusi is not making a valid comparison. He compares *only* the deaths from the inquisitions and witchhunt to *all* deaths that are perpetrated by Muslims, even incidentally. I bet the numbers would stack up quite differently if he applies the same standard across the broad and includes, say, the deaths resulting from the conquest of South-Central America and the exploits of Christian kings such as Leopold in Africa as deaths caused by Christianity.

EDIT: I don't think it is necessary to whitewash the bloody history of Christianity and exaggerate the historical brutality of Islam in order to make the point that these two religions are very different in the 21st century. Christianity has been tamed and defanged by secularism, to a very large degree while Islam hasn't.

676. We need to stop being such cowards about Islam

Comment #230131 by Bonzai on August 14, 2008 at 10:25 am

PJG

I've pointed this out to Christians who have never read it or heard of it because it has been ignored in the cherry-picking games played by the preachers higher up the religious food chain.

Cherry pick they sure do, all believers,--including the "fundamentalists",-- do that because the scriptures are inconsistent. But the point is *most* contemporary Christians cherry pick their scriptures from a modern perspective, not based on Medieval criteria, that is a great and real improvement over Islam.

I think it is perverted to chastise Christians for doing it, as if you are disappointed that they do not behave like 10th century barbarians, so that you can paint an equivalence between Islam and Christianity *today*.

677. We need to stop being such cowards about Islam

Comment #230129 by Bonzai on August 14, 2008 at 10:15 am

goodbeast

There may be a majority of "moderate Muslims" but I suspect that they are "moderate" in the sense that religion has a low priority in their lives.

I would agree with that. The difference between Christianity and Islam is that *mainstream* Islam, as represented by its theologians, clergies and imams, is not moderate. Its theology, as interpreted by its scholars, is not moderate.

Granted that raving jihadists who dream of bombing their way into a Caliphate are a minority, but still mainstream Islamic thought is misogynistic, xenophobic, homophobic, theocratic and totalistic. It still lives in the Middle Ages.

In Islam you don't have an equivalent of the COE, not even the RC Church, let alone various liberal Christian movements, whose theology is moderate (at least in relative terms). Tolerant, modern strands of Islam exist, but they are by far the minority and are regarded by most Muslims as apostates anyway.

Those who insist on painting an equivalence between Islam and Christianity must go back a few hundred years to draw their parallel. I don't think it is particularly relevant today. There is only one Christian theocracy, namely the Vatican, even it doesn't burn heretics or impose the Law of Moses. It is irritating, but one can live with it. Whereas, even Tariq Ramadan, the posterboy of "moderate" Islam cannot bring himself to denounce stonning outright. That is the difference. Next to your mainstream Muslim Cleric, Pat Robertson would be a great liberal. If you think that is far fetch, Josef Qarawadi is considered a liberal in the Muslim world, and it is only recently that he was pressured to declare that FGM is not required by Islam,--but he still recommends it.

678. We need to stop being such cowards about Islam

Comment #229899 by Bonzai on August 14, 2008 at 5:04 am

Oh.. Hari is a "fat, four eyed queer", that is truly informative about his views.

679. We need to stop being such cowards about Islam

Comment #229896 by Bonzai on August 14, 2008 at 5:02 am

A mad dog has been unleashed on this forum, it seems. I am in total agreement with Fanusi this time, how rare.

680. The God Delusion

Comment #229488 by Bonzai on August 13, 2008 at 5:02 pm

Goatse..Some theist troll has linked the picture once, and was promptly flagged for offensive. I don't remember what the thread was, unfortunately.

681. Defend the Individual and So the West

Comment #229465 by Bonzai on August 13, 2008 at 4:22 pm

Goldy

In China, getting the children the best education and getting them to the best university so they have a better life than the parents is leading to great strains and increasing (so I read) suicides among the young.
Can't think of a more Eastern culture than the Chinese.

Why China again?? What you describe is standard fare in Japan for the last 30 years at least.

When I grew up in Hong Kong in the 1980's every year when the results of citywide standardized exams were released, Suicide prevention hotlines had to work overtime.

682. Defend the Individual and So the West

Comment #229461 by Bonzai on August 13, 2008 at 4:11 pm

Fanusi

Romanticist philosophy isn't about the individual; it rejects reason, the most individual of all characteristics.

I think you have it the other way around. The Romanticists (mostly artists,poets and fiction writers rather than philosophers) thought that they were affirming the individual against "the tyranny of reason".

In those days the imagery of "rationality" was the impersonal grand machine, whether it was Adam Smith's self regulating market or Marx's "iron cladded law of history". It hummed along according to its own irrefutable logic, not caring who it might crush under its wheels.The universe progressed like a clockwork, everything was deterministic, known, pinned down and classified, there was no room for the human spirit and agency.The individual was but a cog in the machine, a puppet danced to a prescripted tune like those dolls that popped out from a juke box.

The "rational" society was represented by the brave new world, the dystopia where the "machine" finally triumphed.

The industrial revolution may have been a blessing, but only with the hindsight of several centuries later. The transition was painful and tumultuous. When Dickens looked out of his window, he didn't see shinny cities with well fed, happy people, but hedious slums ridden with diseases, paupers in rags and starving children slaving away in factories, whose chimneys spewed out black smog that enveloped the barren landscape.

That was what the Romanticists were rebelling against.

To understand where the Romanticists were coming from you have to appreciate the anxiety that hung over Europe at the time. You are not being fair by using our perspective hundreds of years down the road to appraise the motives of those who lived in a very different world.

683. Defend the Individual and So the West

Comment #229444 by Bonzai on August 13, 2008 at 3:21 pm

Goldy

Would this also include established courts such as Beth Din (I think it's called) which are allowed to operate freely? That is what sharia supporters will bring up..

Well, ban it as well. This was what we did in Ontario.

When the provincial government finally decided against allowing Sharia, it went one step further and banned all religious arbitrations, preempting the Muslims from accusing the government of double standard. That was a great move.

EDIT: I don't mean that people who support any idea of religious arbitration should not be given citizenship, of course.

684. Do stop behaving as if you are God, Professor Dawkins

Comment #229347 by Bonzai on August 13, 2008 at 11:55 am

Do you cook the funny looking tomato by cutting off the extension first? I think some guys may feel nervous.

Maybe you can make a salad with the extension only?

685. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #229342 by Bonzai on August 13, 2008 at 11:45 am

What I am saying is that to consider using contraceptive as "fighting an imperative" is just a wrong way to look at things.

For the hardcore pan selectionist, we are nothing but dispensing robots for our "selfish genes", in that case the "selfish gene imperative" makes sense. I am not, so I do find that language problematic, but that is because I find the entire assumption problematic.

686. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #229336 by Bonzai on August 13, 2008 at 11:35 am

In many species organisms will stop reproducing or even abort pregnancies under certain conditions if necessary to survive. There is nothing particularly odd about human use of contraception.

How is contraception in vastly underpopulated countries like Canada a necessity for survival?

I hope you don't try to argue condom enhances survival because it prevents STD. I don't mean it in that sense :)

687. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #229322 by Bonzai on August 13, 2008 at 11:20 am

decius

The case for Nurture has been demolished. Get over it, Bonzai.

You are, first of all, confusing "nature" with "selected".

You don't even have to be for "nurture" in order to object to the pan selectionist paradigm, which is much more specific than saying that certain traits are innate, rather, that these traits persist because they are *selected*,and they are selected because they enhance gene propagation in some contrived ways.

Also, I think the main point of the article is lost on you, it doesn't necessary take the side of nurture against nature, but it points to "higher order effects" which cannot be explained by the kind of reductionism that Pinker and company advocate. As an example, Malik pointedly asked, if Pinker is just a seeding robot of his genes, how did he manage to tell his genes to jump into the river by deciding not to have children? Everytime we put on a condom we override the "selfish gene" imperative to procreate and I don't see any good explanation from the pan selectionists,--what floats around as attempted explanations are incredible contrived and speculative.

Civilization is a reality. It is foolish to deny that it has a role in shaping the way we behave. Some behaviour patterns are no doubt innate,--even then they are not necessarily "selected",-- but many others probably aren't. I find it rather unscientific to make a broad, sweeping statement like "nurture has been demolished". Please elaborate and explain.

P.S. I didn't question Pinker's status as a serious scientist. The point is, even serious scientists may fall for some very speculative, unscientific ideas.

688. Optimism in Evolution

Comment #229161 by Bonzai on August 13, 2008 at 7:22 am

First, it provides a powerful framework for investigating the world we live in. Without evolution, biology is merely a collection of disconnected facts, a set of descriptions. The astonishing variety of nature, from the tree shrew that guzzles vast quantities of alcohol every night to the lichens that grow in the Antarctic wastes, cannot be probed and understood.

Very true, that was how I was taught biology in highschool and I hated it so much that I couldn't wait for it to be over.

689. Optimism in Evolution

Comment #229150 by Bonzai on August 13, 2008 at 6:53 am

When these fucktard try to teach that scientific conclusions are wrong because the bible and god says different, I would hope that everyone could see that for the pile of steaming guano it is.

I wish the fucktards would really mean what they say and reject the fruit of modern science and medicine.It is hypocritical to rail against "the devil" while eagerly receiving his blessings.

690. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #229133 by Bonzai on August 13, 2008 at 6:11 am

Steve

I am afraid I haven't seen this tendency amongst serious scientists. It could just be my limited experience.

Evolutionary psychology? Steven Pinker is probably considered a serious scientist.

http://www.kenanmalik.com/essays/fallacy.html

691. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #229127 by Bonzai on August 13, 2008 at 5:51 am

Brian

hen it's been determined. Therefore, when we rail against injustice we are not choosing to do so anymore than we choose to breath to live Thus determinism reigns....

If you argue like that what is not determined except (perhaps) for wave function collapse? I think the chain of causality becomes not deterministic in a practical sense if at some point you lose track of it and the outcomes depend on too many interacting factors in a convoluted and sensitive way,--so that a small change anywhere in the chain will lead to drastically different outcomes.

I also am not convinced that everything that we do can "ultimately" be traced back to "selection" and "selfish genes", as I said, I think a lot of what we do may be selection neutral, In other words, I don't think there is any evidence that selection alone is sufficient to constraint development to such an extent that it will lead to a unique outcome. I think there may be many possibilities compatible with selection.

692. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #229122 by Bonzai on August 13, 2008 at 5:41 am

There is a tendency to invoke "selection" and "selfish genes" as vague,catch all explanations at the level of society and civilizations..They have almost become mythical notions like "God did it" or "the invisible hand". I don't think that is science.

693. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #229114 by Bonzai on August 13, 2008 at 5:34 am

Well he did say "selected for", see the quote.

694. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #229112 by Bonzai on August 13, 2008 at 5:30 am

f "behaving like we can escape our selfish genes" is successful for the survival of humans, then it will have been selected for by definition

Why must selection always come into play and why is it the only factor that determines our behaviour if it does? I think this is too reductionist. I don't know what the break down is, but I suspect that most of our behaviour are probably selection neutral.

Theories,--actually speculations,--that attempt to explain complex human behaviour and cultural patterns in terms of selection (alone) often strikes me as simplistic, willfully myopic, historically uninformed and forced, they have the signs of bad science in that they appear to "select" the data to fit their theories retrospectively,

695. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #229102 by Bonzai on August 13, 2008 at 5:17 am

Really? I prefer shuttle diplomacy, but I can't afford the fuel bill.

Shh.. You don't want to wake up Teratonis, he will say, "Why shuttling around while you can have an internet conference on a wikipedia site? ......Peak Oil.....

696. Judge says UC can deny class credit to Christian school students

Comment #229099 by Bonzai on August 13, 2008 at 5:13 am

Overall, very good news, but it does have its downsidesince everybody who goes to religiously run schools are not religious nuts. They will be victims of this.

No, they are not victims, except of their religious parents who send them to these schools. As it was explained clearly in the article, UC does not discriminate against religion per se, it is just that the science curricula of some religious schools don't prepare students for university level work because they don't really teach science.

697. Defend the Individual and So the West

Comment #229092 by Bonzai on August 13, 2008 at 5:04 am

Brian

From my admittedly biased sample of media reports it seems it's only the 'well to do' who want to leave 'those without doors' (or vaccines) to their own devices. The so called noble savages want to more ignoble, that is, educated, have better health and not watch 10 of their 12 kids die young....Muslims wouldn't migrate to Europe if Europe was no better than the Mid East or Asia. Unfortunately, we don't insist on them accepting Enlightenment values because that would be too colonial. How one can be colonial in ones own country is beyond me...

Read my link above, you'll like it.

698. Judge says UC can deny class credit to Christian school students

Comment #229091 by Bonzai on August 13, 2008 at 5:01 am

"Thinking from a Biblical perspective about science is much different in some areas than if you believe we evolved from a rock. "
A reply on amazon in the comments to a Christian chemistry textbook.
Written by one B. Donahue.

Sounds remarkably like Wooterism.

699. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #229065 by Bonzai on August 13, 2008 at 4:16 am

Philip1978

Saying that, I wonder how much Wooter slurps down the Vodka before he posts?

Na.. Wooter's religion forbids drinking, he is just naturally stupid,--evidence that God doesn't exist.

700. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #228955 by Bonzai on August 12, 2008 at 9:40 pm

Letter???? Ummmm, do people still write letters? Apart from utility companies? ;-)

I don't know, I don't read newspaper often, except online. But in some papers there seem to be a "letters to editor" page and a separate online section for emails, so I suppose some newspaper may still insist letters to the editor be real "letters".