751. Censoring Sir David

Comment #69731 by Corylus on September 12, 2007 at 12:35 pm

I wonder whether David Attenborough's laid back attitude is due to the quiet glee with which any sensible person would approach the situation of being censored whilst in their eighties.

I am put in mind of dear old Christopher Lee being delighted when nominated for the MTV "Best Fight Scene Awards" when he was about 84.

Go David! Release a version of 'Disposable Teens' or 'Fight Song' - I'd buy it :-))

(Yes, I know this is a serious subject, but everyone has been so damn serious and miserable around here recently that I have decided to have a silly phase).

752. Review of Richard Dawkins' new book 'The Fascism Delusion'

Comment #69648 by Corylus on September 12, 2007 at 3:02 am

Dr Benway - you've just made my morning :)

753. The Atheists Interviews

Comment #69519 by Corylus on September 11, 2007 at 3:18 pm

What a nice clear interview :)

OT. I wonder whether Flagellant's Avatar is going to change to Anita Roddick soon?

Seems to be a deceased theme going on there...

754. Review of Richard Dawkins' new book 'The Fascism Delusion'

Comment #69514 by Corylus on September 11, 2007 at 2:52 pm

Result! Found it.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=WsfiD78Cy0s

Q: Is this satire / irony / parody / just funny or just plain weird??

:P

755. Review of Richard Dawkins' new book 'The Fascism Delusion'

Comment #69495 by Corylus on September 11, 2007 at 1:39 pm

Maybe I didn't express myself clearly enough for you Fides

I'm reading the above as a skit (I'm not even going there with the irony/satire debate!) on how critics of Dawkins persist in talking about religion and ignoring his central point as to whether god exists.

It is therefore about fascism/religion and not god/fascism because the question of god's existence is simply is not addressed.

This piece is about bringing to light faulty methods of argumentation.

I can't believe I am sitting here dissecting different viewpoints on a humourous piece :-)

I'm off to watch something less subtle like Monty Python - I believe they have a good sketch which involves grown men slapping each other with fish...

756. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #69483 by Corylus on September 11, 2007 at 12:43 pm

Wee Flea said,

1) All those who say that they know what is in these books without ever having read them, just serve to illustrate the arrogance and ignorance of some atheist fundies.

That is spectatularly unfair David. I spent some time writing a review of one of those books (I even mentioned yours) in a polite response to someone who I was pretty sure wasn't really listening. Others on here have mentioned reading some of these books.

You powers of selective reading and quote mining never cease to astonish.

:-((

Incidentally, I seem to recall you mentioning having bought Grayling's book on a previous thread.

You might want to check out Chapter Three entitled Can an Atheist be a Funadamentalist?

Why do you continually come on here only to throw insults about??

I saw a sign while swimming the other day that amused me - it read:

We don't swim in your toilet - please don't wee in our pool.

Please, show some manners!

757. Review of Richard Dawkins' new book 'The Fascism Delusion'

Comment #69343 by Corylus on September 11, 2007 at 12:22 am

Fides

I suspect you are being deliberately obtuse here.

The analogy is between religion and fascism not god and fascism.

Do stop trolling.

758. Young Muslims begin dangerous fight for the right to abandon faith

Comment #69342 by Corylus on September 11, 2007 at 12:15 am

Mr Jami, 22,

22! Is that right? If so, and he is responding to 9/11, he must have abandoned Islam at 16. Very brave. This shows why the mullahs are terrified of Western influence on their young people.

I sometimes find myself wondering whether that vile troglodyte Bin Laden's actions were as much about fostering division between western muslims and non-muslims as attacking America.

Nothing keeps hatred and terrorism going more than making everyday people pick sides due to 'faith'.

759. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #69210 by Corylus on September 10, 2007 at 2:36 am

Pewkachoo

Try using the "swap comments feature" at the top - has saved me getting RSI from the scroll button :-)

[SNIP] I yielded to the tempatation to bring up the Euthyphro problem again!!

Ignore me everyone - I am thinking that we are not doing Paul any favours here. Maybe he would have to give up his job if he went over to the Dark Side.

Paul some good advice from Veronique there :-)

760. Interview with Francis Collins

Comment #68999 by Corylus on September 9, 2007 at 12:47 pm

HAVNB

If you want to start off with something general I would recommend Ethics by Peter Singer.

In this book he picks out some really seminal pieces of writing (short extracts). You can go through and look at the development of ethical thought.

Guarenteed there will bits you like and bits you loathe in this book. From there you can decide what thinkers you want to look into further - and who you want to avoid.

Might save you some pennies :-)

761. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #68789 by Corylus on September 8, 2007 at 3:06 pm

Steve99

Of course there are scientists who are sure of their religious beliefs, and there are 'arts and humanities' people who are atheists. My point was that there seems to be a general (although obviously not universal) division, resulting in two groups who seem to find it almost impossible to sensibly debate each other, as they seem not to share any common ground about what reasonable and rational debate should consist of. .... However, I am starting to give up. I think that discussions on these matters will generally get nowhere.

Don't give up! Yes, there is a great deal of talking at cross purposes. Personally though, I don't think this because that science and arts types are 'in principle' incapable of talking to each other. I reckon a great deal of the problem is due to the fact that postmodern drivel has suffuced the arts (and is attempting to get into the sciences).

You need to look to analytic philosophers and proper art 'critics' to understand that this situation will not last forever.

Deconstructualism, post-modernism, and epistemological relativism are merely phases.

All things pass :-)

762. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #68768 by Corylus on September 8, 2007 at 1:39 pm

Van Youngman said

Now that the pissin' contest is just about over, it would be helpful if many of you would get back the real problem expressed eloquently in Jonathan Gore's post which indicates that some of these fleas are not really fleas but sincere naïve believers whose beliefs have been exposed in a most eloquent way by Dr. Dawkins. Some of the fleas are true fleas and are out to make a buck.

Agreed Van Youngman - I have given it a bash :-)

Trouble is, I am leaning towards the view that McGrath falls into both categories...

Some people are very good at compartmentalising.

763. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #68755 by Corylus on September 8, 2007 at 12:48 pm

Fides-et-ratio said

Has anyone on here read 'The Dawkins Delusion'? It makes a lot of sense and was written by someone who must be taken seriously by anyone wanting to truly engage with this subject. It'd be handy to hear from those who have as the rest is just ignorance.

Yes,Fides, I have. I have also read some of the other books above. Not all, I haven't read the ones unavailable at present, and I admit I have only read David Robertson's truncated version of his book on his website (which was enough!) However, I do agree that it is important to look at both sides of any argument. Eventually, I will work my way through them. However, I refuse A.N. Wilson on the grounds that I find him unsufferably smug: even intellectual even handedness has its limits. (He could write about something as funny as bumping into Ann Widdecombe at a swingers party and I wouldn't bother to look).

Anyway, what did I think of the Dawkins Delusion? Let's start with the good points.

What I did like.

1) Outright and clearly dismisses 'intelligent design'.
2) Grammatically correct - if a little convulated at times. (I'm a natural pedant, such things are important to me!)
3) Not overlong.
4) The presence of a proper section of end notes and references.

What didn't I like.

1) The constant and unjustified use of the term 'fundamentalist' to describe both atheism and Dawkins - notable examples p.xii and p.6. &p27.

2) McGrath accuses Dawkins of 'being out of his depth' when it comes to philosophy. However, on p9, McGrath fuses the telelogical and the cosmological proofs in a totally unjustified fashion.

What explains the explanation? Or, to change the metaphor slightly: who designed the designer?
p.9

McGrath is either even worse at philosophy than he accuses Dawkins of being, or he is being deliberately disingenuous. (I like to give people the benefit of the doubt - so I will go with the former).

3) In an attempt to diffuse the tension between NOMA (non-overlapping magisteria) and scientific claims about the world. (These often and blatently overlap!) He puts forward the alternative thesis of POMA.

For there is, of course, a third option - that of 'partially overlapping magisteria' (a POMA so to speak), reflecting a realization that science and religion offer possibilities of cross-fertilization on account of the interpenetration of their subjects and methods.
p19.

What?? Absolute drivel. Complete lack of understanding of the distinction between 'justified' and 'unjustified' knowledge. Totally ignores the principles of the scientific knowledge and what it means for truths to be contingently valid and subject to falsification.

4) The misuse of technical terminology:

It [religion] is an epiphenomenon - and a socially and psychologically disfunctional one at at.

Epiphenomenon is a term used in the philosophy of mind (and should stay there).

5) Continual appeals to authority (Francis Collins et al). Not an argument.

6) The constant use of condenscending, patronising, snide language. I personally don't think Dawkins is rude. However, I have to say I prefer being insulted than being talked down to, but that's just me.

7) The use of the author's biographical details to make a point (one person's life experience may be interesting but corrobation is needed if you want to use it for evidence).

McGrath states (and he thinks that this is important enough to italicise)

Except that once I too was an atheist, and was awoken from my dogmatic slumbers through reading books that challenged my petrifying world view.

How apt! A sotto voce wink to those familiar with Kant. His little book is full of it. "Cant" I mean ;)

What I found funny.

1) When attempting to refute Dawkins pointing out that 144,000 is the number of the saved (and evidence of the out-group hostility fostered by religion). McGrath counters with the following:

The 144,000 are probably Christian aesthetic 'warriors' who are using pacificist means and spiritual warfare to resist secular atheist powers and cosmic evil powers" (p74. End note 26)

Wonder how McGrath views himself?? Methinks a little snapshot into his psyche right there...

2) In the "For Further Reading" Section the first book mentioned is interesting:

"The most widely used textbook of Christian theology, which sets out what Christians beleive and why, clearly and impartially is: Alistair E. McGrath, Christian Theology: An Introduction. 4th edn. Oxford: Blackwell, 2007"

Totally worth wading through this book, just to read that gem. "Widely used", "impartial", "clear". Classic!!

The worst bit:

I gained my doctorate in molecular biophysics while working in the Oxford laboratories of Professor Sir George Radda, but then gave up active scientific research to study theology.
p.ix

How unutterably, painfully sad. I read this and I wanted to cry. What a waste of a good mind. So few people are that smart - how awful when they waste it. (I agree with you that he is an intelligent, educated man).

N.B. I do not make the silly mistake of assuming that science is the only thing that is worthy of study (my studies are in the arts), but I do think that he could have put his skills to other uses. Literature maybe, or politics, anything practical that attempts to improve people's lives rather than merely telling them to bear it in the hope for something better in the next. (I have to say though, I am glad he didn't go into philosophy).

He puts me in mind of the character of Casaubon in Eliots Middlemarch.

If you haven't read this book Casaubon was a dessicated, humourless, failed scholar unable to admit to himself, or those around him, that he had wasted his life in the fruitless investigation of an intellectual blind alley. Grim.

Apologies if I have bored you Fides (and anyone else) with my analysis of The Dawkins Delusion. I hope that I have written enough to prove that I have actually read it and my comments are not 'just ignorance'.

[Edited for clarity and typos]
Erratum: I have just noticed that it is not A.N. Wilson that wrote 'Deluded by Dawkins', but 'Andrew Wilson. Apologies to A.N. Wilson - in my defence an easy mistake to make!

764. We need a more intelligent religion debate

Comment #68724 by Corylus on September 8, 2007 at 9:53 am

Theo Hobson said

The same applies to AC Grayling, who is presumably a competent professor of philosophy, but chooses to conceal the fact when in 'militant atheist' mode.

Presumably. Presumably! Can't you be bothered to look him up? Some level of journalism Theo is:-

a) showing
b) admitting to

Theo, do some research. Even if you don't want to wade though all of his work (some of which is routinely used by students) you might like to check out the following:

1) Against All Gods, (a short book - no excuses that you don't have the time), with an interesting chapter on why atheists are not fundamentalists.

2) Or maybe The Meaning of Things (a lovely book full of short essays concerning the definition of commonly used words and concepts, like "love", "hope" and "reason"). You might want to note how "christianity" and "faith" are filed under "Fallacies" and the justification given for this attribution.

N.B. Guys. This individual irritates me no end, and I share the frustration expressed, but please, less ginger prejudice. Thanks.

765. In God we doubt

Comment #67869 by Corylus on September 5, 2007 at 3:38 am

Veronique said

Such perorations about the preposterous proposals of the pre-inclined protesters to a pre-determined progenitor is pathetic. I am just a pragmatic person living in a proper world with little in the way of pretentious posturings. I want no longer to address the BS that the bilious believers bring to this site. I bow out.

Great!! I do love the smell of alliteration in the morning ;-)

Keep posting V - sentences like that make me smile :-)

Northern Bright very interesting posts - enjoyed reading them.

766. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #67700 by Corylus on September 4, 2007 at 12:20 pm

Woo-hoo - everyone noticed the 'swap comment' feature that now stops all that tedious scrolling to the end? Well done Josh! (Anyone wanting to scroll down quickly - just press 'ctrl' and 'End' at the same time)

Paul
Sorry for the slight delay in replying - I try to think more about my posts on this thread. Seems disrespectful not to.

I asked you whether:

Have you considered the possibility that the analytic/synthetic distinction is not a clear cut as you think? As you state "Analytic means true by definition". Simply by using the word 'rape' aren't you defining the act as wrong??

You reply.

Not at all. Rape is basically forced sexual intercourse. There is of course huge emotional baggage with the term, as there would be with incest, necrophilia etc. However, there is no assumption in the definition that it is wrong.

Really? No assumption in the definition that something is wrong? "Murder" is the killing of another human being. Why then do we call it "murder" in some circumstances and "manslaugher" in others? I think we do make huge assumptions and assign moral culpability by way of the terms we use to describe actions. You can dismiss this as 'emotional baggage' if you wish, but I think that you are actually missing out on a very interesting level of analysis by doing so. (Huge field of meta-ethics out there for the discovery).

I think the term implies [morality] that there is a good, right, proper, decent way of behaving. There are things one should do, and things one should not do.

We are back to prescriptive statements again. I notice you are avoiding the word "ought"... ( Incidently, I have to say that I prefer the term 'ethics' to 'morality'. The former has less 'emotional baggage'. Humour me :)

Ok. Then you hit me with the killer...

I dislike the term 'objective morality' simply because there are thoroughly decent, relativist moralities that still hold that some actions are wrong and others right.

You dislike the term 'objective morality'! Then what the (pauses) Sam Hill have we been arguing about?? (BTW - just because a moral system is not deontological it does not, by definintion, become 'relativist'.)

There is a subjective element to Situation Ethics, and I'm not sure that it would be helpful to talk about it as 'objective morality'.

There is a subjective element to all ethics, that's why it is not helpful to talk about 'objective morality'. This has been understood from Hume way back to Bishop Holloway at the present time. Incidentally, have you read his book Godless Morality? You could probably get away with reading this at work ;)

You seem to have this deep seated need to be able to make broad 'ought' statements, but (unusally) you realise that this is based on shaky philosophical grounds. The world is a complex place, full of hideous moral dilemmas, competing needs and possible consequences that must be considered. This is why the vast majority of religious people stick their fingers in their ears and ignore the part of their holy books that talk about blanket rules.

Don't get me wrong, I'm fine with this. The world would be a vile place indeed if they decided to follow rules without question (look at sharia law). However, what I am not fine with is when they turn round and accuse atheists of having no morals: they always say 'morals' not 'ethics' - have you noticed that?

There is a crass version of this:-

"Atheists have no reason to be moral. Why, if I were an all atheist I would go around doing hideous things like killing people I don't like and buggering the cat!"

There is a more subtle (but ultimately quite patronising) version of this:

"How do atheists make prescriptive judgements, how do they ensure that their moral statement have universability? Morality must be objective and God-given. Moral relativism cannot be right - every moral intuition we have appears to say that somethings are just plain wrong!!" (Not realising, of course, that a 'moral intuition' is a $%^&ing subjective thing!.. growls...) "Maybe these poor deluded atheists are really tapping into God's love without realising it."

Paul, you haven't come up with the first one - to your credit :)

However, you steer very, very close to number two :(

I am not denying that atheists may have codes of conduct. They may think that they are behaving morally. ...Just because an atheist says s/he is behaving morally, this doesn't mean that the atheistic world view allows for there to be moral principles that one ought to follow.

That's why you get accused of using 'morality' as a proof of God. At best it's a priori as opposed to a posterori (in which case you need more that just that!), at worst it is merely wishful thinking.

You can counter with saying that you aren't arguing that morality is a proof of God - you are arguing that Kantian ethics based on reason is the best way to go. Fine. However, you don't need God for that. There are some atheist Kantians out there you know. Needless to say I don't agree with them, but I don't deny their existence.

I had some other things to say about the difference between types of knowlege (moral/scientific) but I have already wittered on enough. Will save for another time.

I was going to apologise for the long post, but I have just spotted the tome that Dianelos has just posted - so I won't!

767. The Flea Circus moves to your iPod!

Comment #67435 by Corylus on September 3, 2007 at 12:23 pm

Blimy. This smacks of desperation, and a really low budget, (i.e. no printing or distribution costs).

I have read a couple of the flea books above in the interests of intellectual honesty and fairness, but I really don't think I can face listening to them.

I got my ipod mixed up with my older sister's the other day. There I was innocently sitting on the train... and The Carpenters came on. Damn near had a stroke (and my fellow travellers learnt some new words).

Sorry not plugging this into my brain. Bridge too far. Uh-uh.

768. What do these atheists understand of religion?

Comment #67304 by Corylus on September 3, 2007 at 3:19 am

She's just peeved because her favourite telly programme got axed!

On Sunday, I was on the last ever Heaven and Earth show on the BBC which, for nine years has been a gentle dale in the noisy world of modern television – pleasurable, tranquil, receptive, candid and at times profoundly revealing of the place of religion in today's world.

I sympathetise. I was gutted when Angel finished and don't even get me started on Serenity.

Just paint 'geek' my forhead :P

769. Review of Darwin's Angel: An Angelic Response to the God Delusion

Comment #67291 by Corylus on September 3, 2007 at 2:54 am

I do find her mail irritating (thanks for posting it V) - particularly this bit.

I have read the God Delusion which I liked less than his other books. His self aggrandisement is intellectual not personal – the largest number of references in the book are to his own work.

I really don't think that this is true. Maybe she just got confused between TGD and McGrath's book.

Anyone wanting a laugh need only turn to the end of The Dawkins Delusion. There are copious references to himself and his own work and there is even a section 'Recommended reading' where he shamelessly pimps his own books.

770. Review of Darwin's Angel: An Angelic Response to the God Delusion

Comment #67261 by Corylus on September 3, 2007 at 1:38 am

Looks like Salley doesn't want to come on here. Understandable.

Pity though - as an English teacher she might have been able to contribute a few fun limericks.

C'mon Salley you can be a direct as you want! You know you want to ;)

On a more serious note, I believe this demonstrates that it is important to always consider that the person whose article you are commenting on may be reading what you say.

So, I try not to be really, really rude. Unless of course I am very much hoping that the person in question will be reading... (E.g. Ted Haggard)

771. In God we doubt

Comment #67249 by Corylus on September 3, 2007 at 12:51 am

I like John Humpries and I'm not going to be harsh on him. (I loved the quote about the IKEA manual). He is obviously a humane and intelligent man. I might even buy his book.

However, I do think he is being shortsighted here. The trouble is when hanging with sweet and funny Anglican vicars it is easy to get a false idea of the state of the world. This statement leapt out at me.

Of course the mad mullahs are dangerous and extreme Islamism is a threat to be taken seriously. But we've survived monotheist religion for 4,000 years or so, and I can think of one or two other things that are a greater threat to civilisation.

Not 4,000 years when monotheist religion is going nuclear we haven't. Please Mr Humpries look at Iran.

Even without this, I find that once you strip away all philosophical verbage over the nature of ultimate proof and understanding you are left with one simple question.

What's the point of having a mind if you can't make it up?

772. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #67240 by Corylus on September 3, 2007 at 12:13 am

Dianelos
Comment 2074

I made the point about physicalism because of the way in you appear to want to make a blanket division between naturalism and idealism. Yes, "physicalism" is generally confined to the philosophy of mind (and is sometimes not property defined). However, for you everything is mind so the distinction is appropriate.

I don't agree that it is associated with naive materialism. Physicalist accounts of mind (which say that the mind is made up of physical 'stuff 'only) are often subtle in that they understand that the nature of physical 'stuff' is subject to scientific revision. Also, they don't deny mental experience, they merely make the point that mental and physical experience are inextricably linked.

Comment 2075

Corylus (post 2011 or #65968):

That was Lauregon not me - I'm not that articulate!

773. Review of Darwin's Angel: An Angelic Response to the God Delusion

Comment #67183 by Corylus on September 2, 2007 at 2:04 pm

This forum does seem to show that there is an inverse relationship between religiosity and intelligence, judging by some of the wonderful pieces of poetry written by the contributors to this site.

You need to check out this thread Kaiserkriss. There's some stunners on there ;)

http://www.richarddawkins.net/article,1572,Fallen-Pastor-Seeks-Aid-to-Pursue-Studies,NYTimes

774. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #67181 by Corylus on September 2, 2007 at 1:35 pm

Paul

There is no morality.

Not so fast! I happily concede that there is no such thing as "objective" morality.

You however make the unsubstantiated statement that therefore, for atheism 'there is no morality'.

Not justified. Let me demonstrate why.

1) My view of morality is subjective. It is subject to revision, inherent in it's conceptualisation is the understanding that it is important to continue to learn and understand.

2) My view of science is subjective. It is subject to revision, inherent in it's conceptualisation is the understanding that it is important to continue to learn and understand.

a) You accuse me of not having any basis for believing in morality.

b) You do not accuse me of not have any basis for believing in science.

Why do you make this distinction and how do you justify it's use?

775. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #67175 by Corylus on September 2, 2007 at 12:47 pm

Paul

I thought for a bit you were going to bow out. Understandable. I know you have to go back to school soon. Should be a break, listening to those who define themselves as either believing in 'sumfink' or 'nuffink' rather than arguing the toss about idealistic theism :) Maybe that's unfair though - possibility the children are smarter and posher in your neck of the woods.

Anyway, re the question of 'going beyond science', and the desire to do so because of a need for objective morality.

We can, and must, go beyond science.

My question: Are you talking about 'science' or the 'scientific method'? (You appear to use these two terms interchangably).

a) Science is simply a body of knowledge. It is constantly and impressively growing. OK occasionally knowledge gets lost or tragically misinterpreted, but that's another tale.

I do understand what you mean when you point out

...the huge assumptions that it is necessay to make in order to make any statements about the physical world.

Fine This knowledge is not strictly value free (I'm avoiding the word 'objective' at the moment: I'm heartily sick of it), what it is though is replicable and falsifiable which is the closest we mere mortals can get to value free.

Therefore, scientific truth claims are only contingently valid. Hurray say I. Long may this dinstinction continue. Why limit the questions you ask because of some strange notion of essential, unknowable truth? Just because I don't understand something I do not make the hugely arrogant mistake of assuming that it cannot be understood. Maybe I'm just not smart enough.

(My admiration for this type of epistemology is one of my reasons for "biting the bullet" as Dianelos describes it over objective morality i.e.denying its existence. I don't just reluctantly do this though, I happily do this! (Sticks out tongue) I do not like the idea of putting a full stop to inquiry and understanding, merely because of the dubious notion of synthetic a priori moral truths dreamed up by the sexually repressed old fossil that was Immanuel Kant).*

b) The scientific method however is a manner of enquiry. It works by testing competing hypotheses. It is therefore, by definition, evidence based. Whilst the hypotheses that you test are not value free - it can be argued that the method is.

You can talk about going beyond current scientific knowledge, in that there is much to be learned. Fine. (Although on this board full of prickly scientists - might I suggest that instead you talk about 'advancing' science??)

If instead, you are talking about 'going beyond the scientific method' then you need to explain what method you are talking about and why it is, by implication, superior.

No-one is arguing that there are different methods of enquiry. E.g. Describing literature in chemical terms would be sheer idiocy, in the same fashion that chemical in literary terms would be daft. You have to be sensible about what type of explanation you make.

However, if you want some overaching method of enquiry that is superior to the scientific method then I am afraid you will have to explain precisely what it is and why you think it 'goes beyond'.

Yes I know Dianelos had been giving this a bash for 40 pages now, but I would be interested in your views on it. You haven't said much on your views on Dianelos' worldview by the way, but I suspect you don't agree with all of it.

Your question:

How do I prove that rape is wrong?

Have you considered the possibility that the analytic/synthetic distinction is not a clear cut as you think? As you state "Analytic means true by definition". Simply by using the word 'rape' aren't you defining the act as wrong??

I'm being a bit playful here. I am not saying 'might is right' and something is wrong because I say so. What I am saying is that I think it might be illuminating if instead of wondering about notions of objectivity and proof - you instead ask yourself the following questions:

"What is it about the act in question (rape) that makes me call it so? Why do I assign this act (by definition) such a negative value?


---
* If you want some interesting background reading on the psychology and hypocricy of Kant - you might enjoy out the following link. (Maybe you've already read it).

http://www.homepages.ed.ac.uk/rhl/maria.html

This is an abridgement of Rae Langton's 'Duty and Desolation' (1992), Philosophy 67, 481-505

Steve like the new avatar.

776. Polling Data on Science and Religion

Comment #66951 by Corylus on September 1, 2007 at 4:53 am

The desire to teach creationism in the schools is a symptom (my emphasis). The disease is the attitude of those sixty-four percent of the people who think their invented-from-whole-cloth religious beliefs are more reliable than the findings of science.

I have been considering this possibility for a time.

See the following article about the 'Creation Museum, where the journalist interviews Ken Ham:
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article2872252.ece

"If you believe in millions of years of evolution and you didn't get it from the Bible, then you really do have to reinterpret Genesis, which means you are upending biblical authority," he explains. "If you are saying it really didn't happen like Genesis describes, how can you trust anything in the Bible?" Does this mean that a relaxed interpretation of parts of the Bible, Genesis included, might lead to the unravelling of Christian faith altogether? Ham likes the word "unravel". That is the point exactly. And, thereafter, the unravelling of society.

"Step back and look at the big picture. America is not as Christian as it used to be. The Ten Commandments are not where they should be, gay marriage is accepted more and more, abortion is being permitted. The big picture is that there is a loss of biblical authority in this nation and a much greater loss over in England and in Europe generally." That is the rot, as Ham sees it, which has to be reversed.

There is a deep sense of fear here. Never a productive emotion.

Ultimately I don't think this is about the validity of scientific claims contra the bible. This is about all claims contra the bible (i.e. those from literature, history etc).

I suspect that the particular venon with which scientific claims are treated is related to how they (in terms of having obvious demonstrable results) are seen as the biggest threat.

NOMA? Incommensuate levels of enquiry? Not their concern.

They don't need Dawkins to tell them that evolution poses a challenge to religion, they have already figured it out for themselves.

Well said.

777. Fruit fly parasite's gene invasion raises questions over evolution

Comment #66914 by Corylus on September 1, 2007 at 1:43 am

Beat's me Russell's Teapot - I'd email admin if I were you.

778. Review of Darwin's Angel: An Angelic Response to the God Delusion

Comment #66913 by Corylus on September 1, 2007 at 1:37 am

Some telling words and phrases in here:

archetypal images that dramatise the invisible realities

"History", as we know it, is a wholly modern concept. For the ancients, a history would be a mixture of reportage, received wisdom, narrative and story.

the fact of fact and the fact of fiction,

Those who think that not knowing is safer and more attractive than its opposite

What we have here is someone who has drunk deeply from the postmodernist tankard and can't stop belching.

779. Fruit fly parasite's gene invasion raises questions over evolution

Comment #66793 by Corylus on August 31, 2007 at 12:33 pm

Russell's Teapot

Took me ages to work this out myself. I recently wrote detailed instructions for someone else, I reproduce below:

1) When logged in look at one of your comments. Click on your name.
2) You will be taken onto a blue page with 'Viewing Profile' on it. At the top left hand side you will see 'Board Index' written. Directly below this you will see 'user control panel'. Click on this.
3) On the 'user control panel' page - which is laid out like a card index - you will see a tab with 'profile' on it. Click on this.
4) You will now see a page asking you to 'edit profile'. On the left hand side you will see the option 'edit avatar'. Click on this.
5) On the 'edit avatar' page in the middle is an option to 'upload from your machine' with 'browse' on the side of it.
6) Click on 'browse' you will then be able to download/upload (buggered if I know the difference) a presaved picture from your PC's memory.
7) Make sure your file is not too big (the maximum dimensions are given on the page).

N.B. You might want to check the properties of any picture before you try to download - you may have to crop or compress accordingly.

780. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #66617 by Corylus on August 30, 2007 at 3:45 pm

Paul

Thanks for the post.

Looks like you have some other people who want to talk to you though - and I don't want to swamp you.

I'll reply soon, but I'll give your some space to work through the other comments :)

781. Gene regulation in humans is closer than expected to simple organisms

Comment #66611 by Corylus on August 30, 2007 at 3:32 pm

Thank you mdowe - working my way through :)

782. Mother Teresa's '40-year faith crisis'

Comment #66591 by Corylus on August 30, 2007 at 2:40 pm

Lane, nice to have your input :)

You say,

I'm happy to know that even you brilliant people can be kind and nice.

Agreed, it's great when those qualities go together - Elli is one of our smartest and kindest posters.

Quetz

I'm only young (24), and no doubt many would say I have hardly lived yet!

Sodding hell! I thought I was one of the younger ones on here. Now I feel 110.

Don't worry Quetz, it's quality not quantity that matters. I should know, dormice don't get out much :-(

783. Gene regulation in humans is closer than expected to simple organisms

Comment #66556 by Corylus on August 30, 2007 at 12:00 pm

I can see why the world 'design' rings bells RichardM, (the needless attribution of agency worries me too) but I read this is a totally different fashion.

This strikes me as a bit of a smack in the teeth for the ID mob. E.g. the "It's so darn complicated I guess a magic man did it". If instead you concentrate on simplicity...

the most basic underlying principles and strategies used by the genomes of higher organisms to regulate gene expression are quite close to those used by simple organisms like bacteria and yeast.

Then the argument of irreducible complexity really does not wash. What you are faced with instead is a small amount of simple processes where the illusion of complexity is provided by the fact that:-

An external or internal stimulus activates some genes, which in turn control others genes whose activity turns on or off various biological processes.

By that analysis one understands complex things in terms of simple things working in an interactive and algorithmic fashion.

Sod it - what do I know!! I'm an arts type. Doubtless talking out of my backside: happens alot sad to say.

Jonecc have I totally misunderstood?

784. The importance of doubt

Comment #66552 by Corylus on August 30, 2007 at 11:50 am

fides_et_ratio is Latin for "I know Latin."

Whilst ... Caput tuum in ano est is latin for... well pretty much what Richard just said.

Or maybe... Futue te ipsum et caballum tuum.

Little snippets from my Latin for all Occasions book - who said it wouldn't come in handy.

785. The importance of doubt

Comment #66434 by Corylus on August 30, 2007 at 2:09 am

Well, waded through that.

Anything worthy? (I always try to be fair) I have to give points for grammar, vocabulary and spelling but that's as far as it goes.

Overall, misrepresentative and frankly nasty.

I'm a natural cynic and I try not to let that cloud my judgement, but I believe the very last line is telling....

· John Cornwell is director of the Science and Human Dimension Project at Jesus College, Cambridge. His book Darwin's Angel: An Angelic Riposte to the God Delusion is published in hardback by Profile on September 6, priced £9.99.

Plug, plug, plug ....

786. Shop targets U.S. hunters with camo Bibles

Comment #66238 by Corylus on August 29, 2007 at 12:17 pm

Opps! RichardMorgan - hereby telling myself off for being over earnest and miserable :-)

787. Shop targets U.S. hunters with camo Bibles

Comment #66144 by Corylus on August 29, 2007 at 3:16 am

RobertM

Think you are being a bit unfair here.

Apparently there is some element of truth into happy animals tasting better. For example, meat-eating friends tell me there is a huge difference in taste between free range and intensively farmed chicken and bacon.

Free range animals tend to have more fat on them, and fat transmits flavour.

788. Fallen Pastor Seeks Aid to Pursue Studies

Comment #66143 by Corylus on August 29, 2007 at 3:01 am

Philip

What possible benefit is he going to bring to the counselling world?

I would suspect sweet FA! Counselling is about helping people face difficult situations, head on and being positive. It is not about judgement or denial. I find myself darkly suspecting that he might go into "counselling" homosexuals out of their condition. Hell - he's the voice of experience after all!

If he had the natural compassion needed for counselling he would have realised the damage his church's teaching causes. For example, suicide is a huge problem with young people, a common factor is struggle with sexuality. It is unknowable how many young people have killed themselves over this. Does his attitude do anything but contribute to this? Nasty judgemental, sanctimonous little hypocrite. Despicable individual.

789. Shop targets U.S. hunters with camo Bibles

Comment #66132 by Corylus on August 29, 2007 at 1:49 am

There is a HUGE a difference between killing for food and killing for sport. (Jesus H you seem to have ignored people who made this important distinction)

When someone goes and hunts for food (often to feed their children) who am I to say that this is wrong? I wouldn't presume. In fact, if you hunt your food direct I would say that this is morally better than buying factory farmed produce from your local supermarket because you do not really like to think about where your food came from. At least the animal has had a bit of a life in its proper environment.

I admire the consistency and honesty of people who hunt for their own food.

However, I also try to be consistent in my actions. I find myself unable to kill anything - I simply can't face it. I'm too soft. Accordingly, I haven't (knowingly) eaten anything you have to kill to get for over 20 years. (A decision taken in childhood, but one I don't regret) Not easy at first, but, I could no more eat meat now than fly in the air. (I also think it would be better for our poor beleagued environment if more people ate lower down the food chain and there was a greater emphasis on arable farming, but that is a separate point). HungarianElephant I agree with you that it is shocking how few people grow their own food - I'm not self sufficient in my garden, but I do make an effort.

Hunting for sport though seems to bring out the worst in many. (Especially when these people hunt in groups) Maybe it is some deep atavistic pack instinct that is being tapped into, but its not pretty. In Britain we have the fox hunting brigade (ostensibly outlawed now, but the law is often ignored). This is often more about group cohesion and social climbing than anything else. They say that this is for the good of the countryside, however, left alone the countryside regulates itself. Oscar Wilde called them "The unspeakable pursuing the inedible." I find it hard to disagree.

This combination of going out and killing what you do not / can not eat while sanctimonously carrying a bible shows a certain type of mindset that many (including myself) would like to distance themselves from. If this makes me hateful and dogmatic mea culpa.

790. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #66088 by Corylus on August 28, 2007 at 2:15 pm

Steve comment 2006.

I understand your frustration, I really truly do, but have to admire the man's persistence and manners, as I do yours. At least he hasn't used bad poetry like Darwin2...

Paul

Hope you had a good break. Interesting tale of your attendance of that debate. I think what I took from Craig was a dislike of his tactics and an instant personal dislike. (NB I very rarely make snap judgements like that), but have to say he struck me as a smug, self-important little weasel.

Of course, what we understand as reality is an important question. Of course, proof is a loaded word.

However, and this is a huge however, while it is fine to make this important point it is not fine to use this as a springboard to making utterly ridiculous assertions. Something might be possible yes, but:-

1) Is it probable?

2) Does the consideration of this possibility advance our knowledge or merely waste our time?

3) Does the person using this argument from uncertainty (which is only valid for agnosticism anyway) then do a dramatic volte face and make assertions for which they have absolutely no positive evidence?

I have to say that I think it is more satisfying when atheists scientists debate with theist scientists and atheist philosophers debate with theist philosophers. When people talk past each other, they merely waste each other's time. I would have liked to see AC Grayling against Craig. Who do you think would have won? (I know who I have my money on).

You ask:

Should we go beyond science?

Are you questioning whether this is

a) possible?

b) desireable?

791. Fallen Pastor Seeks Aid to Pursue Studies

Comment #66031 by Corylus on August 28, 2007 at 1:29 am

Hmmp! Anyone want to pay off my lingering student debts?? No? Thought not.

There was a young lady from Nod
Who thought babies came from God
But is wasn't the almighty
That lifted her nightie
It was Roger the logder, the sod.

792. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #65935 by Corylus on August 27, 2007 at 12:40 pm

Dr Benway said

The philosophers here can correct me, but as I understand: materialism limits reality to matter and energy; naturalism leaves the door open for other factors yet to be detected or defined, but rejects alleged supernatural realities.

I think you might find an interesting half-way house in the term 'physicalism'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicalism

(Bit more subtle than simple 'materialism')

I notice that Dianelos never uses it - wonder why?? If he does can someone please point me to the post, and I will most humbly apologise.

I am still rereading the thread and thinking deeply about the posts on here (I originally only scan read with amusement and came on here to chat with PaulE) - my poor little brain is sodding killing me!!

Have to say the following:

1) Dianelos - you have got the thread to over 2000 and appear to have coaxed a response from just about every regular commenter on this site - well done!!!

(Well, apart from Henri Bergson our resident Nietzschean sexist, arrogant little twat - I believe he was told to come play with you, but obviously didn't have the guts...) Again if I have missed his post apologies to Henri.

You now have enough material for a whole book of dialogue/christian apologetics here. If you do write such a thing, I hope you credit a tiny dormouse, who didn't say much but was stunningly insightful.

2) Bowing and scraping respect to all with the posters you have stuck with this from the beginnning - Steve99, Benway etc.

I am not worthy.

Bloody hell... I am even beginning to sound like Keanu now.

I give up

793. Open letter to Michael Shermer in response to his letter...

Comment #65903 by Corylus on August 27, 2007 at 9:50 am

Fair enough Keith :-))

I think you are very wise BTW to wait to see what actual women think about the language used concerning them.

It is interesting that Kelly apparently wrote this blurb and the woman to whom it referred didn't give a stuff. "Cool", as they say. Completely their choice. Probably is an American usage thing. (I am not up on American English either and suspect transatlantic differences often play a factor in differing responses to some of the articles on here).

I reserve the right to get prickly though. Maybe that is why I'm not in running for being a 'cool atheist chick'. Grumpy cow maybe... ;-)

P.S. I'm a Rigsby fan too!

794. Anger over 'blasphemous' balls

Comment #65864 by Corylus on August 27, 2007 at 6:54 am

Oh, it's about football.

I must say that the actual article is a bit of a let down. I was expecting all manner of things after reading that wonderful title ;)

795. Richard Dawkins at the Edinburgh Book Festival

Comment #65859 by Corylus on August 27, 2007 at 6:42 am

Interesting link JeanB.

I hope Josh puts this up.

796. Mother Teresa's '40-year faith crisis'

Comment #65858 by Corylus on August 27, 2007 at 6:39 am

Logicel

Thanks for the interesting post :-)

I'm glad that I was not simply over-analysing the woman - it appears there is a definite personality type at work here...

797. Open letter to Michael Shermer in response to his letter...

Comment #65826 by Corylus on August 27, 2007 at 1:35 am

Keith

Re the sexist language claim, why do I often get the idea that the person who objects is often less disturbed by the dodgy language than desirous to show how right-on they are?

Sorry Keith, no. I understand your point, but no.

My objection had nothing to do with desiring to show myself as 'right-on' - it genuinely pissed me off. (Maybe I have more experience of being patted on the head and talked down to than you do?)

To British ears, 'chick' (and 'right-on') smacks so much of the 1960s that it almost has comedy value, in the same way as 'groovy' might.

I have British ears too, and again I understand your point. However, if you want to make a 'comedy' point why on earth put it at the beginning of a serious critique?

I am not uber sensitive about language usage, I rarely play the grammar police role, and I understand why people think it is nitpicking and get annoyed.

However, I do find it a great pity that people might choose to skip Sapient's article (which has a lot of good points in it ) merely because they are turned off before they start.

Zarcus

As for the author's mentioned in Michael's Sciam piece, I would imagine Sam Harris' reaction will be the most vitriolic.

I don't know Zarcus - I actually think that there is a possibility that Dennett might surprise. See the article below for an example of what happens when he is annoyed.

http://richarddawkins.net/article,635,Response-to-Orr,Daniel-C-Dennett

If Dennett responds I suspect this might have more impact than a reply from Sam.

There has been lots of debate on Shermer's article, but one thing that everyone seems to agree on it is that it was dreadfully unfair to Dennett.

798. Only secular schools will overcome sectarianism

Comment #65822 by Corylus on August 27, 2007 at 12:34 am

Arrh SG!

You're a mean man ;-) That was not a face I needed to suddenly see when I was innocently munching on my morning muesli.

There are now oats on my pc screen and raisens in my hair...

799. Mother Teresa's '40-year faith crisis'

Comment #65785 by Corylus on August 26, 2007 at 2:50 pm

Thanks for the imput ? :)

The psychological make-up of people like MT is fascinating. Disturbing, but fascinating.

800. Mother Teresa's '40-year faith crisis'

Comment #65780 by Corylus on August 26, 2007 at 1:53 pm

Have just ordered Hitchen's book - should make interesting reading in the light of this!

Re the publishing of her letters without her consent. Interesting question. In the Time article her reason for this was:

Consistent with her ongoing fight against pride, Teresa's rationale for suppressing her personal correspondence was "I want the work to remain only His." If the letters became public, she explained to Picachy, "people will think more of me — less of Jesus."

In terms of the complex personality type she seems to have had I find myself wondering whether she was protesting too much about not wanting them published.

Maybe part of her hoped that her flagellistic, masochistic, self-indulgent meanderings would be foisted onto the public and that adulation and admiration would result?

Can any ex-catholics on here can help me? I vaguely recall reading that it was part of catholic doctrine that good deeds and prayers done by the living on the behalf of a dead sinner can raise them out of hell/limbo?

Possibly I'm overanalysing here and being unfair. I do try to be sympathic to anyone in distress. However, I am afraid I am finding it hard to much care about her 'crisis'.