51. Mother Nature is Not Our Friend

Comment #105831 by Janus on January 1, 2008 at 10:56 pm

Diacanu:

I'm just saying I have no emotional investment in them as continuers of the human species.

Whereas you do have an emotional investment in humans as we are today, i.e. my first post in this thread wasn't me putting words in your mouth, it was 100% correct.

I'm with Ashton Black. Wanna bet on that?

That immortality is possible is a certainty. Do you think immortality won't sell once it's made available to the public? Of course it will sell, like nothing has ever sold before! It therefore seems reasonable that immortal beings will begin to think on the scale of decades, centuries, and millenia rather than months and years, doesn't it? It also seems reasonable that removing the fear of death will radically change the human psyche, don't you agree?

Something similar can be said of super-intelligence. Do you think that many people will be happy to have an IQ of 100 when they know they can purchase a brain restructuring operation that will raise it to 400? And don't you think that a massive increase in intelligence won't have an incredible effect on society?


mezzanoche:

I think perhaps we are jumping the gun a bit with all this talk on "immortality" and "super modified humans". I mean last time I checked millions of people every year are still dying of all sorts of illnesses and diseases, so I am going to hold off on popping the bottle of champagne just yet.

You can think that immortality, super-intelligence, and the rest of transhumanism are a long way off, you can think that we'll destroy ourselves before it will happen, and you might even be right. But there's no doubt that these things are possible. Short of an apocalypse, if it can happen, it will happen.

I'm not sure I understand the relevance of your argument. Sure, a large fraction of the world are still living in the Middle-Ages, in many respects. That may mean an utopia is a long way off, but it has nothing to do with the coming technological singularity.

52. Mother Nature is Not Our Friend

Comment #105825 by Janus on January 1, 2008 at 10:15 pm

Well, if you won't take immortality, I imagine you'll be free to live your short life as you see fit.

Yes, someday transhumans will be to "normal" humans what humans are to whales today. I don't see that as a terrible thing, but then I think that all conscious beings should have rights.

53. Mother Nature is Not Our Friend

Comment #105817 by Janus on January 1, 2008 at 9:34 pm

Diacanu:

Was there a certain part that confused you?

Yes, what the hell does it have to do with Ashton's point (that is, the one that you claim to be making)?

It looks like a knee-jerk reaction to progress to me. What's wrong with fishmen and nanite clouds? Well, they're certainly very different from humans as they exist today, but beside that?



In any event, I don't think there's much to worry about on that particular front. Yes, there will probably be a period during which humanity as a species will be guided by what is fashionable and profitable, and a lot of that represents something that's distasteful to many of us; that's a reasonable extrapolation from the current state of our culture. But that won't last. As soon as we achieve immortality and get the means to alter our own minds, we'll quickly become more concerned with the longterm view, less easily guided by our petty instincts, and much, much smarter. By then, "fashionable" and "profitable" will mean something completely different.

A much more scary possibility is that defensive technology won't be able to keep up with the offensive technology that is certain to become widely avaible.


Ashton:

For example, what if a gene sequence was discovered that changed behaviour in say, social situations, that made us crave to "fit in", to agree with the majority or respect authority.
I personally am not so sure. Look at the controlling influence of modern mass media.

What if it is discovered? I thought your worry was that profitability would shape humanity in the decades to come. What makes you think that people will want to pay to become spineless sheep?

54. Mother Nature is Not Our Friend

Comment #105807 by Janus on January 1, 2008 at 9:09 pm

Diacanu:

Don't why it's so hard to digest for some here. *Shrug*

Because you haven't made the clear statement of opinion that Ashton has. And because you've said things like this:

"It's pretty much curtains for anything I ever gave a shit about.

Humanity is going to mutate itself into something unrecognizable, so I have no emotional investment in the futurity of...fishmen, or nanite clouds, or whatever the fuck they're gonna be."

55. Mother Nature is Not Our Friend

Comment #105801 by Janus on January 1, 2008 at 8:53 pm

Diacanu,

If you don't want me to put words in your mouth, you should say something of substance. You've made 18 posts in this thread. EIGHTEEN POSTS, and you haven't stated your opinion clearly in any one of them. Are you embarrassed? Ashamed of your beliefs? Or are you just choosing to remain ambiguous for the hell of it?

Yes, technology is dangerous and humanity might not be "wise" enough to handle what will be invented in the next few decades. Any idiot knows that much, or thinks he does. Is that all you want to say?

56. Mother Nature is Not Our Friend

Comment #105795 by Janus on January 1, 2008 at 8:39 pm

It's pointless to debate this particular topic with Diacanu. He has a particularly strong emotional attachment to the way humans have existed for so many centuries, that's all. It's a subjective preference, so there's nothing to debate.

57. Disquiet over schools' moment of silence

Comment #103049 by Janus on December 24, 2007 at 8:52 am

Hmmm. I'm sort of torn on this one.

1) A moment of silence isn't inherently a religious thing.

2) It's always felt like the popular religious tactic of giving a secular name to a religious something in order to sneak it into the public sphere, the most famous example being calling creationism "intelligent design". Aren't we being naive if we let ourselves be fooled by this kind of thing?

3) While I'm not big on compromising ourselves in the name of "not alienating prospective allies", I have to admit it's a battle that will have rather insignificant positive effects if it's won, whereas it might have negative effects (from a PR point of view) whether it's won or lost.

4) As lobdog has said, this could very well be the thin end of the wedge, and we all know how insidious religious believers can be.

58. 2007, a bad year for God squadders

Comment #101626 by Janus on December 20, 2007 at 3:49 pm

The unprepossessing brand of exclusive evangelicalism followed in some parts of America ( the "I'm Saved, You're Not" approach to salvation) has never been far from the headlines this year and is also very effective in turning people away from religion.

As opposed to what? If salvation is to be a meaningful concept at all, there are only three possibilities. Either some people are saved and others aren't, or nobody's saved, or everybody is. But if everybody's saved already, then what's the point of this kind of religious belief?

That faith, by its very nature, entails doubt. If we could be really, truly certain, about the existence of God, what, really, would be the point of it all?

You tell me. What IS the point of religion? Many people would say that a big part of it is to provide moral guidance. If that's so, then being certain about the existence of God would mean we would know how He actually wants us to behave. As it is, His believers have to guess. Does He want us to shun and oppress homosexuals, or not? How does God feel about stem cell research? Is belief in God important, or are good works all that matter? God establishing His existence and His will clearly would solve a lot of problems. Also, it might save the two-thirds of the world who aren't Christians from an eternity of suffering, if you care about such things.

That God would choose to come among us in such a way is so strange, so inexplicable, so unbelievable, it compels us to believe.

There's nothing strange or inexplicable about it. It's exactly the kind of story you'd expect superstitious, uneducated people living in the pre-scientific age to come up with. I mean, c'mon. A guiding star? A virgin birth? A half-god prophet? Walking on water? Magically healing the sick and bringing the dead back to life? An impending end of the world? Eternal bliss for those who follow the guy? All the popular mythological clichés.

59. Way of the Master Radio talks about Dawkins' Christmas Comments

Comment #100226 by Janus on December 18, 2007 at 11:55 am

Okay, I admit it, I laughed. It's like a bad Simpsons episode: You feel stupid for laughing, but you still do.

60. CBC News: Sunday - Richard Dawkins

Comment #100167 by Janus on December 18, 2007 at 10:40 am

These are obviously promotional gimmicks to get people's attention.

They're also lies.

Are you a literalist or just being too dense to read between the line?

Perhaps I am too dense. Explain it to me then. What DID Solomon mean by those three sentences? What's the hidden meaning?

With you this is a stable pattern and you can't accuse me of jumping to conclusions.

I sure can. Your pattern is that every time there's someone defending Richard or attacking one of his opponents and you happen to disagree, your immediate conclusion is that he must be a groupie or an atheist fundamentalist.

61. CBC News: Sunday - Richard Dawkins

Comment #100163 by Janus on December 18, 2007 at 10:34 am

If they have rational reasons for their outburst against ES they certainly haven't expressed them well. Most of the diatribes are irrational and not unlike the way groupies react when they think that their idol has been dissed.

Perhaps the people who posted in this thread assumed that everyone who was likely to read their comments would be smart enough to agree with them, or if they disagree, understand where they're coming from.

"Richard Dawkins is the GRINCH who's trying to steal Christmas, or every other religious holiday for that matter!"

"Richard Dawkins is confident that the theory of evolution explains EVERYTHING!"

[after the third time that Richard's said that he's not demeaning our urge to do good in any way]
"Are you DEMEANING our feelings?!"

62. Interview with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #100156 by Janus on December 18, 2007 at 10:18 am

Bonzai:

That was a joke. If you're religious you would no doubt be a fundamentalist because of the apparent inability to understand words non literally.

Sometimes I have the feeling that I am being fooled by robots in a Turing test experiment.

In all likelihood, that was a simple isolated mistake on Miss Harry's part. If you were religious, you would no doubt be a particularly stupid believer because of your apparently chronic tendency to jump to conclusions.


But in any event, you're wrong, a religious fundamentalist's problem isn't that he can't understand words figuratively, it's that his thinking isn't tortuous enough to fool himself into ignoring parts of what he believes is the word of God.

A religious fundamentalist is someone who fools himself once. A religious moderate is someone who fools himself twice: First to hold religious beliefs, second to make these beliefs fit with modern science and secular morality.

63. CBC News: Sunday - Richard Dawkins

Comment #100138 by Janus on December 18, 2007 at 9:39 am

You were great, Richard.



Bonzai:

For some of the atheist fundies here apparently all interviewers of Richard's would be morons unless they just say yes and act as if they are totally in awe of Dawkins' presence short of prostrating before him.

It is not an interesting interview if the interviewer doesn't ask provocative questions and challenge the guest's answers. Also the interviewer asks questions that (s)he thinks the general public would ask, not what Dawkin's groupies approve as good question (I suppose there is no good question for some here unless the questioner accept all of Dawkin's premises) Some questions may be stupid for atheists who have debating these questions forever, but for the general public these are relevant questions that should be asked.IMO Evan Solomon is an excellent host and all his questions and rejoinders are legitimate, Dawkins actually appeared to have lost his cool.

I know, atheism is not a religion in principle but some recovered fundies apparently "practice" their atheism as though it is.

Then again, maybe we really think the host was an idiot.

There have been dozens of Dawkins interviews where the interviewer asked the questions that uneducated Christians would ask, and in the many cases it was actually done well, no one called the interviewer stupid. Solomon wasn't one of those interviewers.


As for you, has it occurred to you that the people who disagree with you on subjects like this one don't share your opinion because they have rational reasons to do so? Your accusation of "atheist fundamentalism" is nothing more than a dishonest attempt at poisoning the well. But, well, I guess that if you didn't keep moaning about atheist fundies in every other thread, you wouldn't be Bonzai.

64. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #98931 by Janus on December 14, 2007 at 11:39 pm

That... was awesome. Discussions about religion between atheists are so much more interesting than between an atheist and a theist. I want more! More!

65. Controversial Anti-Muslim Dutch Film Adds to Already Simmering Tensions

Comment #98225 by Janus on December 13, 2007 at 9:56 am

Khiyal, do you know a website where (many of) the polls you mentioned are gathered? Everytime I get into a debate about Islam on one forum or another it takes me ages to find the relevant data.

66. Girl, 16, dies after hijab dispute with father

Comment #97277 by Janus on December 11, 2007 at 8:55 pm

Are acts of this kind inspired by Arabic culture or by Islam?

67. Beyond Belief 07: Enlightenment 2.0

Comment #94777 by Janus on December 6, 2007 at 2:12 pm

Okay. Well, Atran is wrong.

IIRC, his main justification for that particular claim of his is his experience with hostage negotiation with Muslim terrorists.

68. Beyond Belief 07: Enlightenment 2.0

Comment #94774 by Janus on December 6, 2007 at 2:04 pm

But the "in your face" approach obviously doesn't "close off dialogues". If anything, it's motivated Atran and his critics to engage in further dialogue.

I'm always astonished that people always assume that this approach is counter-productive and breaks off communication. On the contrary, the soft approach usually seems to end up with the two opposite camps "agreeing to disagree", which is just another way of saying they've given up on trying to decide who is right.

69. Beyond Belief 07: Enlightenment 2.0

Comment #94348 by Janus on December 5, 2007 at 12:07 pm

Well, I can see how someone could perceive Atran as smug, but I don't think he is. He just doesn't believe in phrasing his objections to certain hypotheses in a way that exudes humility and uncertainty, which is a good thing as far as I'm concerned.

70. Beyond Belief 07: Enlightenment 2.0

Comment #94050 by Janus on December 4, 2007 at 4:30 pm

Yup. Dennett's interview by Roger Bingham made me realize how dumb I truly am. Strangely, this hasn't depressed me at all, probably because I admire Dan so much, not just for his brilliant ideas and clever analogies but for his intellect as a whole.

71. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #94043 by Janus on December 4, 2007 at 4:12 pm

Why do you spend so much time watching these debates

Because we think there's a chance, however small, that we might be wrong.

if nothing, absolutely nothing makes you think other than your position?

Because we're right, of course.

72. Nurses Told to Turn Muslims' Beds to Mecca

Comment #94040 by Janus on December 4, 2007 at 4:03 pm

Bonzai,

I thought you might. ;)

Your disagreement is a small one, as it only applies to certain minor accommodations in hospitals, so I don't want to debate this too much.


My objection is the slippery slope argument. After all, it's not necessarily a fallacy. There are some advantages to having a clearly defined rule that is not subject to interpretation. If you reformulate the statement in my previous post to be something like, "...or any beliefs which are not supported by evidence unless these accomodations demand very little ressources (which can be money, time, etc).", it's likely that the "very little" part will be abused by people who have been infected by the dogmas of multiculturalism and political correctness.

And I wouldn't care all that much if it was abused a bit, except that I think it's imperative that we stop indulging the ever-increasing demands of Muslim immigrants, for reasons I've mentioned in some of my other posts.

73. Nurses Told to Turn Muslims' Beds to Mecca

Comment #94016 by Janus on December 4, 2007 at 3:27 pm

I'm curious to see if anyone here disagrees with the following statement:

No public institution should use any of its ressources to make accommodations for cultural beliefs, religious beliefs, or any beliefs which are not supported by evidence.

74. Beyond Belief 07: Enlightenment 2.0

Comment #93915 by Janus on December 4, 2007 at 12:53 pm

Well if Harris agrees with Atran 90% than he is quibling over 10%. Whatever that 10% is you can't argue there is a direct link from theology and terrorism as Harris does. Even if he is absolutely correct for that 10%, it only accounts for 10% and it is a weak link.

I'm pretty sure that Harris doesn't mean that he thinks that Atran's theory explains 90% of suicide bombings. Rather, he agrees with 90% of the statements that Atran makes, but not with the other 10%. Namely, he doesn't agree with Atran that suicide bombings would occur with any significant frequency in what we think of as the Muslim world if it wasn't for specific beliefs contained in the Quran and Hadith. For example, Atran's "soccer team" might very well be the catalyst that propels potential suicide bombers into action, but religious beliefs may still be the root cause of the desire to blow oneself up, without which the catalyst wouldn't have had anything to catalyze.

75. Beyond Belief 07: Enlightenment 2.0

Comment #93899 by Janus on December 4, 2007 at 12:29 pm

Harris himself said that he acknowledges Atran's data and that he agrees with 90% of what Atran said. But in my view, and I think also in Harris' view, Atran has yet to show what the logical link is between his findings and the statement that Islam has nothing to do with suicide bombings. In other words, Atran may have explained part of what motivates suicide bombers, but he hasn't demonstrated that his theory is the full explanation.

76. Beyond Belief 07: Enlightenment 2.0

Comment #93894 by Janus on December 4, 2007 at 12:11 pm

And Atran said Harris doesn't have the slightest idea what he's talking about, heh.

77. Atheism's Wrong Turn

Comment #93277 by Janus on December 2, 2007 at 3:00 pm

Mango:

If you've read "The Demon Haunted World," or at all aware of Dr. Sagan's career, then you know he was keenly interested in opening up people's minds to the wonders of the universe. I have no doubt that he truly wanted atheists and theists to find common ground, even in a sense as vague as truth-seeking. I have spoken to many theists -- every other Tuesday I set up an atheist station at my university's Student Union and talk to them. They do seek truth, and some have an open mind to what I say, others are closed off, apparently content with their revealed "Truth." I can tell you that Dr. Sagan's sage advice does help me communicate -- when I speak to theists with respect and an obvious eagerness to *understand* them they reciprocate and even if they do not abandon their faith they at least become aware that not all atheists are elitist or fire-breathing.

PR bullshit, as I said. No doubt it's useful PR bullshit. No doubt it helps communicate and opens many doors etc etc etc, but it doesn't make it true. Someone who is content to believe something based on faith and nothing more is not searching for the truth.

The desire to find common ground can lead to dogmatism just as easily as the crudest form of wishful thinking. The danger of this desire is that because we want to find common ground we tend to see common ground where there is none.

Another danger is that if you repeat a lie enough times, even the people who know it's a lie will be convinced it's the truth eventually. Look at Stephen J. Gould's nonoverlapping magisteria, for example. It may have been very useful to make theistic evolutionists believe that science is completely on their side, but now it's infected so many minds that there are even die-hard atheists who believe it.

So I think we have to be very careful with the use of PR phrases, if we use them at all.

78. Atheism's Wrong Turn

Comment #93249 by Janus on December 2, 2007 at 1:57 pm

Mango:

He writes that believers and non-believers alike are searching for truth, and in that effort our common ground lies.

Then Sagan is wrong. If believers and non-believers have common ground, it's something like a shared desire build a better world (although we sometimes disagree as to what this better world should be). But if you think that believers are searching for truth, you haven't talked to many of them.

I doubt Sagan believed what he said. In all likelihood, it was a subtle taunt aimed at believers to make them think. Or maybe it was just PR bullshit.

79. Atheism's Wrong Turn

Comment #93237 by Janus on December 2, 2007 at 1:26 pm

I think Linker thinks that liberalism is somehow synonymous with or closely related to postmodernism. He wants harmony, but acknowledging the fact that some people are right and others are wrong would, according to Linker, inevitably lead to war and conflict, therefore anyone who is convinced that certain beliefs are *gasp* false must be a warmonger.

But of course Linker and his ilk only apply this curious standard to religious and spiritual beliefs. Why? Well, because those beliefs are really popular, of course.

80. Atheism's Wrong Turn

Comment #93223 by Janus on December 2, 2007 at 12:51 pm

More of the usual nonsense.

My rebuttal:

- Russell's teapot; we're certain that the Judeo-Christian God and the Muslim God and all the other blatantly imaginary deities of human religions don't exist for the same reason you're certain there are no humanoid, green-skinned, two-eyed aliens living on a planet orbiting Alpha Centauri.

- Freedom of belief and of expression does not equal freedom to indoctrinate children. Parents have rights, but so do children.

- Tolerating ridiculous beliefs and abstaining from ridiculing ridiculous beliefs are two different things. No atheist is trying to oppress believers, or to legislate religious belief. We just aren't willing to treat nonsense as if it weren't nonsensical. We give precisely as much respect to religious believers as you give (or should give) to someone who believes he can predict the future by observing the patterns formed by his feces in the toilet bowl: none, because both beliefs are based on faith and nothing else.

- To be dogmatic is to hold unquestioned and unquestionable beliefs, a trademark of religion. It isn't to dismiss the most implausible of ideas until their supporters find evidence.

81. Double-checking Dawkins

Comment #93210 by Janus on December 2, 2007 at 12:37 pm

Good lord. Would it help you killjoys to think of the author's choice of activity as a hobby? I hope you won't disagree with me that playing around with computers is no more a waste of time than, say, watching television, or playing video games, or sleeping more than 8 hours a day.

82. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #93202 by Janus on December 2, 2007 at 12:24 pm

Louise,

the point is that while in most couples sexual infidelity is hurtful to one's partner, it doesn't have to be. "Infidelity" and "philandering" don't even have to be meaningful concepts.

If that's not what you and your husband want, go right ahead, no one has a problem with that. Hell, personally I'm a big fan of monogamy, and have no desire whatsoever to have sex with someone other than my girlfriend. What Professor Dawkins is saying is that we need to get rid of the automatic assumption that monogamy is the only moral option.
And also that even those of us who choose to be monogamous need to learn to keep our sexual jealousy under control, at the very least. Sexual jealousy is natural, but it's not what I would call a beautiful, positive emotion. As I said in my previous post, promises should be respected, but the consequences that follow the breaking of a promise should be proportional to the harm that is done. And I think the harm of "cheating" is perceived as much greater than what it actually is, precisely because we give so much unwarranted consideration to sexual jealousy.

83. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #93189 by Janus on December 2, 2007 at 11:57 am

While I acknowledge that the Professor should have mentioned "trust" in his article (and he's admitted it himself in a Comment in this very thread), I think many people are making too big of a deal out of this.

Yes, someone who "cheats" on his or her partner when there was an agreement between the two of them to be monogamous has indeed broken a promise. That's bad, but it's not the end of the world. People break promises all the time; it makes someone sad or angry, but it's usually soon forgotten and life goes on. Some woman might promise her husband she'd stop eating those delicious donuts in between meals and break that promise. The husband will be annoyed, the wife will apologize, and voila, no need to dramatize the situation needlessly.

Why should it be different with "cheating"? Well, of course because of sexual jealousy. But that's the very thing that Dawkins was addressing in his article, that it's a remnant of our ancestral past, one that is difficult to ignore but that has no positive consequences and should therefore be minimized and kept under control as much as possible. STDs and sexual jealousy aside, breaking a promise about who you'll have sex with isn't such a bad thing, really; very comparable to eating donuts when you've promise you won't.

So the people agreeing with Dawkins about sexual jealously but who are nevertheless outraged that he hasn't mentioned the fact that cheating implies a broken promise strike me as not having fully understood the implications of what Dawkins is saying. Yes, it's a broken promise! But that's all it is. It might deserve a frown, a little shouting if it's done more than once or twice, perhaps; nothing more.

84. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #93176 by Janus on December 2, 2007 at 11:26 am

Hell, I don't even think Christians should be "held accountable" for Christianity's worst atrocities. Why would they be? Just because they share some of their beliefs with some really evil people doesn't mean they're even slightly responsible.

However, what they need to acknowledge is that their religion has inspired and motivated certain Christians to commit these atrocities. That's not something they're usually willing to do. Usually they'll say that their religion was "misused" by people who were bound to do evil things anyway (and amusingly, or not so amusingly, there are many atheists who buy that).

But of course they're wrong. Holding a certain belief often means you act on this belief, and Christianity includes plenty of beliefs that make Christians think and act in certain ways, some of them rather unpleasant. For example, the belief that your child will go to Hell if s/he doesn't stop masturbating can and does motivate many Christian parents to literally traumatize their children with the fear of Hell, not to mention it often destroys their sexual lives later on.

So doesn't the same thing apply to atheism? No, it doesn't. Not because atheism is oh so virtuous, but because it doesn't include any beliefs that can inspire anyone to do anything. It can't inspire evil, because there's nothing about disbelief in God that can inspire evil. That said, it can't inspire good either, because there's nothing about disbelief in God that can inspire good. Atheism isn't special in this regard, the same thing can be said about disbelief in karma, disbelief in a Grand Universal Consciousness, disbelief in anything that's not supported by evidence, really.

And of course, that's why atheism is always only a tiny fraction of who atheists are. Most of the time, atheism is just one more consequence of our skepticism. As far as morality goes, I think many if not most of us adhere to something that resembles secular humanism: A respect for reason, evidence, a rejection of dogma and tradition for its own sake, the concern for the people around us in this life, not a hypothetical afterlife, a conviction that building a better world isn't just a dream but a real possibility, if we work hard enough. Other atheists believe other things, of course.

The point is that it's not atheism that motivates us to do anything, because disbelief in something has never made anyone do anything, for good or ill. Likewise, it's not atheism that motivated Mao and Stalin to do what they did, no more than it's atheism that motivates Bill Gates and Warren Buffett to be the world's greatest philanthropists.

What matters when we are evaluating the worth of an ideology, belief, philosophy, or religion from a moral point of view is not what its adherents do or don't do, it's not even what they do "in its name", it's what they do because of their beliefs. Hence why religions can be blamed or lauded for some of their believers' actions, but atheism cannot.

85. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #93164 by Janus on December 2, 2007 at 10:54 am

Um, someone clarify this for me. Haven't we already found an explanation for altruism? Wasn't that the whole point of The Selfish Gene?

86. Why debate dogma?

Comment #93003 by Janus on December 1, 2007 at 11:38 pm

As far as I know, Condell hasn't insulted anyone personally either, except Osama. Making general statements is exactly what he does.

87. Why debate dogma?

Comment #92999 by Janus on December 1, 2007 at 11:18 pm

Allying with theistic evolutionists to fight creationism, or allying with moderates to fight fundamentalism, or allying with Christian fundamentalists to fight Islamism doesn't preclude criticizing the ones we're allying with in the most strident terms.

I'm pretty sure the Bishop of Oxford knows that Dawkins has called all religious believers "deluded". Has this destroyed their alliance?

88. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #92987 by Janus on December 1, 2007 at 9:48 pm

The fine-tuning argument is based on the same fallacy that so many theistic arguments are based on: special pleading.

If the coincidence of the universe being what it is demands an explanation, then the coincidence of God being what It is demands the same kind of explanation. And if God doesn't demand an explanation, neither does the universe. As always, God is superfluous.

89. Debate: Ayaan Hirsi Ali vs Ed Husain

Comment #92602 by Janus on November 30, 2007 at 10:19 pm

Oh really? How magnanimous of "your camp".

As I wrote in the DSW thread it is "your camp" that wouldn't tolerate any dissent from the party line. Anyone who is not ultra militant would be branded an "appeaser", "apologist" or some kind of 5th columnist who is "sucking up to religion". The opening attack of DSW, along with the mean spirited and illiterate posts in the Paul Davies thread, were what prompted my first shot.

Yes, I know you want to portray us that way, but you're wrong. The attacks on DSW and Davies were perfectly warranted. The half dozen scientists who posted replies to Davies' article on Edge were pretty much in full agreement with our criticisms of him, you know. Not that I'm arguing from authority, but it should make you rethink your belief that we're oh so dogmatic.

I didn't say you truly agree with the Wahabis, that would be insane. I said you people argue like the Wahabis, effectively using their arguments in an effort to shoot down the moderates.

It's not our fault the Wahabis are logically coherent given their premises, is it?

The point that you seem to be ignoring is that we don't really care about criticizing the moderates' incoherent interpretations. We aren't telling them, "No no, you're wrong, that's not the right interpretation, THIS is!" in reaction to their beliefs themselves. We don't want to convince them that the correct interpretation is a literal one. Our criticism is solely a reaction to the moderate dogma that Islam is not the cause of the countless forms of barbarism Muslims are responsible for. We tell them, "Look, Muslims believe that the Quran was inspired by Allah, right? Look there, it tells Muslims to cut off the hands of thieves! Isn't it obvious that Islam is the motivation for this act of barbarism?" And the moderates will do everything to deny it, will come up with the most incredibly tortuous "interpretations" anyone could ever imagine.

That is when we use what might look like Wahabist arguments. But of course, they're not really their arguments, they're just common sense.

We don't care what the right interpretation is. We just won't allow moderates to get away with their ludicrous apologies for Islam. It just so happens that the chosen tactic of moderates is to claim that any evil that seems to be caused by Islam is due to a corruption or a misinterpretation of the Quran or Hadith.

So how is that different from moderate Jews and Christians?

It isn't different. Jews and Christians also like to pretend that their religions aren't responsible for any evil act committed by Jews and Christians, and they do it the same way that Muslims do, by claiming that their "figurative" interpretation is the right one and the fundamentalists are wrong, even if they seldom say it so directly.

You are saying, essentially that you hope the Wahabis win just to prove that you're right about the intrinsic evilness of Islam. Now I can't go along with that. It is really perverted.

I know you said you preferred the moderates to the fundis in the previous paragraph, but that sounded almost like a window dressing disclaimer in the context of the rest of your post.

I am right about the intrinsic barbarism of Islam, I don't need any more proof. :)

What I want is for the secular people of the world to accept this as well. It's imperative that we recognize the root of the problem if we're going to do something about it. And in order to do that I have to point out that the lies promoted by Muslim moderates (and some fundies), such as "Islam is a religion of peace" are just that, lies.

Thank you for the anti-liberal rant. So what is your solution?

Don't grant any more rights to Muslims than we would grant to, say, people who believe in crystal healing. Stop letting Muslims into our countries for a while and work very hard at integrating those who already live here. Never bend the knee when faced with intimidation from Muslims who want to curtail our freedom of speech because they're "offended", and in fact, force them to accept our right to mock Islam (for example, the famous Mohammed cartoons should have been published in every newspaper in the Western world after the first threats by Muslims). Forbid the kind of religious indoctrination of children that goes on in Britain at the moment. Raise people's consciousness about the barbarism of Islam, and about the fact that moderates are nicer people than fundies not because they have the right interpretation, but because they ignore large chunks of their sacred texts.

By the way, I'm a liberal myself, albeit an atypical one.

So how are you going to achieve 2)?

By making secular people aware that multiculturalism, as it is currently practiced, is pure crap. By make people realize that we shouldn't tolerate barbarism just because it's part of a foreign culture or religion. By getting rid of the dogma that religions never cause people to do evil things.

I can't help but notice an inconsistency here. According to you people Muslims are supposed to be so herd like that they would automatically listen to the Wahabis and reject the moderates because the Wahabis give them definite answers from the book. On the other hand they would listen to AHA who tells them to throw the book away.

Uh, I've asserted neither of those things. Hell, I don't even care if those things are true or false.

You haven't answered my question: if you think we would hurt the moderates in the eyes of Muslims by supporting them why should we support AHA?

Um, I have answered your question:

"I support AHA because she does more than try to convince Muslims to reform, she also tries to convince liberals that multiculturalism, tolerance of intolerance, etc are suicidal.

Also, she speaks the truth, and that is worthy of admiration in and of itself."

Ali addresses herself to secular people too (and to religious people who are so moderate that they might as well be secular). As I've explained, this isn't preaching to the choir, because most of us are politically correct multiculturalists.

90. Debate: Ayaan Hirsi Ali vs Ed Husain

Comment #92586 by Janus on November 30, 2007 at 8:12 pm

Vinelectric:

Your fired up antagonism is most unwelcome.

Tell me what is the use of saying things like that?


Of course I know what the use is, it's yet another attempt to portray me and people who share my opinion as strident, dogmatic, and antagonistic, so as to ostracize us and get us to shut up.

This kind of dishonest tactic is a hundred times more reprehensible than any rudeness.

91. Debate: Ayaan Hirsi Ali vs Ed Husain

Comment #92585 by Janus on November 30, 2007 at 8:07 pm

Bonzai:

Oh, come now. As if you are really going to shut up because of what I say. This is an open forum, we criticize each other's ideas all the time. If my criticism of your approach is to tell you to "shut up", the same can be said of your criticism of mine. So grow up and stop acting like a cry baby.

Needless to say your logic is flawed. That I'm not going to shut up doesn't excuse your telling me to do so.

And no, I'm not trying to silence you. As I said in the Sloan vs Anger thread, that's the difference between you and me. I'm fine with you using whatever approach, whatever tactic you like; I truly am in favor of a completely open, completely free discussion and debate. But you're not, you think my "camp"'s way of doing things may actually be harmful, and so you try to silence us, by trying to create the impression that we're irrational or dogmatic, among other things.

So then why are you supporting AHA? Wouldn't the same logic apply?

I support AHA because she does more than try to convince Muslims to reform, she also tries to convince liberals that multiculturalism, tolerance of intolerance, etc are suicidal.

Also, she speaks the truth, and that is worthy of admiration in and of itself.

Even without supporting the moderates, what is the rationale of trying to shoot them down by effectively arguing on the side of the Wahabis ? Can you please explain that logic to me?

No one is arguing the side of the Wahabis. The Wahabis say the Quran and the Hadith are inspired by Allah. We say it isn't. The moderates say that these sacred texts are only partly inspired, or were fully inspired by Allah but should be interpreted in a different way. We say that's false too, and while we're at it we point that their "interpretation" is so blatantly incoherent it's laughable.

Of course, if someone is going to believe nonsense, I'd rather he believed nice civilized nonsense rather than barbaric, violent nonsense. But the problem is that those who believe nice civilized nonsense aren't willing to admit that what they believe is nonsense. They have to believe that they are right in their interpretation. After all, the Quran and the Hadith seem to be bad, but Allah is Good, therefore any interpretation of the Quran and Hadith that makes them look bad must be wrong. Consequently, anyone who says that the atrocities and barbarism committed by Muslims are a consequence of Islam must also be wrong. Islam is blameless, must be blameless, or the moderates' entire belief system would come crashing down. If they believed otherwise, they wouldn't be Muslims.

And it just so happens that this delusion of Muslim moderates fits perfectly with the multiculturalism, excessive tolerance, and dogma that religion is never the cause of evil that most liberals adhere to in the Western world. From this comes Europe's current mentality which consists of endlessly kowtowing to Islam, making special accommodations, denying that some of its citizens are victims of the worst kind of childhood indoctrination, failing to defend freedom of speech, etc etc etc.

So, "shooting down" Muslim moderates is a good idea for two reasons:
1) Their beliefs are false, and speaking the truth is almost always a good idea.
2) It's necessary to get rid of the mentality that is keeping the Western world from defending its most precious values.

92. Debate: Ayaan Hirsi Ali vs Ed Husain

Comment #92574 by Janus on November 30, 2007 at 7:36 pm

Vinelectric:

You're contradicting yourself, most likely because you're aware at some level that telling us what you really think would make you look like an idiot.


Bonzai, whom you defended, doesn't want "discussion and public debate". Discussion and public debate is precisely what Fanusi Khiyal and Zamboro were engaging in until Bonzai told them to shut up.

I want an open debate, Bonzai wants a restricted one.

93. Debate: Ayaan Hirsi Ali vs Ed Husain

Comment #92567 by Janus on November 30, 2007 at 7:23 pm

Vinelectric:

What approach are you talking about?

As Bonzai said, Muslim fundies aren't going to be convinced of anything by atheists, so there's nothing I can do on that front.

"Encouraging" Muslim moderates? By doing what?
By pretending that the Quran and the Hadith are the basis of an ethical, peaceful religion? That what is written in them is perfectly compatible with modern society?
Or simply by being "supportive" of moderates? And how exactly is that going to help them? As I said, atheists showing unfaltering support for their cause won't help them, just the opposite.

94. Debate: Ayaan Hirsi Ali vs Ed Husain

Comment #92559 by Janus on November 30, 2007 at 7:11 pm

There you go again, Bonzai, telling those who criticize nonsense to shut up. Why should we shut up? So we don't discourage moderate believers in their efforts to convert their fundy brethren?

When do you think we can stop censoring ourselves, then? How long do we have to give a free pass to lies and falsehoods if they happen to be mostly harmless? When all fundamentalists have become moderates, perhaps? How long do you think that will take?


On another note, the funny thing is, the "support" and "encouragement" you want us to give to reformers like EH is more likely to hinder his efforts than to help him. How do you think Muslim fundies will react if they see that Muslim reformists, whom they practically consider to be apostates already, have the unfaltering support of those dreaded, immoral atheists?

95. This Friday: Debate between Dan Dennett and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #92543 by Janus on November 30, 2007 at 6:19 pm

Good news, shad0w. I imagine the debate will be available somewhere in a few days or a week or something.

96. GOD VS. SCIENCE: A Debate Between Natalie Angier and David Sloan Wilson

Comment #92296 by Janus on November 30, 2007 at 8:49 am

Bonzai:

I don't see why this is such an unreasonable position.

It's not unreasonable. As I said, it's ultimately a subjective question: Do you put truth ahead of harmony, or vice versa? And of course a subjective preference cannot be said to be more or less reasonable than another subjective preference.

However, it does put Sloan and I in opposite camps, at least for some things.

It amounts to saying that if a little white lie keeps you happy why would I waste my time and energy to try to burst your bubble? We do that in real life all the time.

Suppose your neighbour is very ugly but he is under the delusion that he is a handsome prince. This belief allows him to have a healthy self image and a normal social life. Would you stick him in front of a mirror to lecture him what an ugly toad he really is and that he should wear a mask when he goes out? What good would it achieve if he finally comes around to the side of "truth" and decides that he should become a hermit or kill himself?

Now this is just silly. First, I wouldn't go out of my way to convince this guy that he's ugly, but then I don't go out of my way to convince any particular religious person that s/he's credulous. However, if this ugly man starts telling me how lucky he is to be so handsome and all that, I certainly wouldn't refrain from bringing him back to reality, unless I had some good reason to think that this would plunge him in a depression from which he would never recover. Putting my respect for the truth as such aside, generally speaking I think it's better for people to face up to reality, harsh as it may be, rather than delude themselves.

Second, one ugly person believing he's handome can't be compared to religious beliefs, which are not only much larger in the scope of the delusion they inspire, but are also specifically designed to spread and propagate themselves.

Dawkins says that the "atheist movement" is urgently needed because of 9/11, creationism, a revival of Christian fundamentalism in the U.S. etc. In other words, this urgency is prompted exactly by what religion causes people to do, like David Sloan Wilson says, not some abstract notion of "truth"

The very fact that Dawkins allies himself with moderate Christians to fight against creationism indicates that even him, in practice, does not simply value truth above all else. I think Dawkins himself would agree that it is a waste of time and resources to devote equal energy in attacking John Spong and Pat Robertson simply because they both believe in Jesus.

Making a priority of criticizing falsehoods that are particularly harmful doesn't mean Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and I put any less value on truth.

Hell, I even think we should team up with Christian fundamentalists against Islam, but that doesn't keep me from criticizing Christianity! Why should it?

To say that religion might have something to offer is not apologizing, it is again an empirical statement that can be verified or disproved by data.

That's not apologizing, no, but then I never said it was. In fact I was very careful to say the exact opposite.

DSW doesn't say we shouldn't attack religion, his quote has a caveat, which is "if it offers something in value" and I take it to mean net value, balancing all the pros and cons.

This, however, is apologizing.

This is not the same as saying that religion is positive and in fact he clearly says in the closing argument that there are times when it is not and we need to fight that, like the breaking down of the separation of the state and Church happening in the U.S.

Yes, I know, I made it very clear in my previous post that I was aware of this. Why did you ignore that part of my post? Is that a sign of dogmatism on your part?

The title "God v.s science" is completely inaccurate. No one is arguing for "God".

They're debating what the "God v.s science" battle should look like, or if it should take place at all. Your repeated failure to understand the obvious reeks of dogmatism, don't you agree?

This thread is not about Atran or Shermer so I'll be brief. They certainly don't tell atheists to "shut up". Atran's main point is that the root causes of many apparently religiously driven conflicts actually lie elsewhere and it would be naive to see only the surface and wage war on a shadow. This is an empirical statement that can be verified or refuted by data. Atran does have a lot of data that appear to back up his position while his critics have none. Shermer's message is simply about tactics.

Atran also made the argument, at last year's Beyond Belief conference, that criticizing a religious person's beliefs isn't a good idea because "you'll wind up dead" (he seems to think that criticizing religion in a western society and criticizing religion in a hostage negotiation are analogous situations). He also said things like, "[Other scientists] insist against all reason and evidence that things ought to be rational and evidence based. It makes me embarrassed to be a scientist and atheist. There is no historical evidence whatsoever that scientists have a keener or deeper appreciation than religious people of how to deal with personal or moral problems." Beside being a complete non sequitur, this statement of his shows that he's in the Sloan camp of "harmony > truth".

As for Shermer, he isn't just arguing for a different tactic, he wants us to stop using our tactic and confine ourselves to his.

The five people I mentioned (Sloan Wilson, Atran, Shermer, Mooney, and Nisbet) are all saying the same thing to the new atheists: "Shut up".

Sloan tells us we shouldn't criticize false beliefs that have a significant amount of benefits. Atran tells us we shouldn't criticize false beliefs if they help for dealing with personal and moral problems. Shermer tells us we shouldn't criticize religion because that won't help get rid of religion, and because people have the right to believe stupid things. Mooney and Nisbet tell us we shouldn't criticize religious beliefs because it might lead religious moderates to think that science is anti-faith.

Notice that we aren't telling them to shut up. You'll never hear Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, or Dennett tell Shermer that he shouldn't use his preferred tactic, or tell Mooney he shouldn't use "framing" to promote evolution, or tell Sloan that he should stop saying that religion may motivate people to do good.

There are more than two camps, you know. I don't think any of these five people are in the religious camp. Rather, they're in the camp of people who want to keep people like me from attacking ridiculous beliefs, for various reasons.

We aren't trying to silence them, but they are trying to silence us. That's what puts them in an opposite camp, not the fact that we disagree with them on a few points.

97. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #92113 by Janus on November 29, 2007 at 10:22 pm

Well done Richard, as always.

You could tell the interviewer read TGD and liked it. :P

98. GOD VS. SCIENCE: A Debate Between Natalie Angier and David Sloan Wilson

Comment #92092 by Janus on November 29, 2007 at 9:29 pm

Bonzai:

First, there is some confusion here. Not only in the conversation between the two of us, but also in the debate between Natalie Anger and David Sloan Wilson! I just re-read all of it, and it seems to me that what they're saying is 95% compatible, that in fact they aren't debating at all.

Anger is arguing that scientists should criticize religion more than they currently are, on account of its falsehood.
Sloan Wilson is arguing that religion is better explained if you hypothesize that it grants some benefits to groups and individuals.

But those two statements don't contradict each other in the slightest. Anger wants to act, politically, Sloan wants to explain; one doesn't preclude the other.

The only place where I detected a real disagreement is when Sloan Wilson says things like, "there's a kind of a silliness to banging away at religious beliefs for their obvious falsehood", and, "Do they help people function in their communities? Then this might be an explanation for why they exist. It also makes it unnecessary to criticize these ideas, again and again, because they depart from factual reality."

Here I took Sloan to mean what it looks like he means: Don't criticize false beliefs that have positive effects on individuals, groups, and societies. That's also the message I got from Dennett's quoting from Sloan's book.

Now I may be misinterpreting him, but if I am I have to wonder why he bothered to debate Anger. He should have debated someone who was actually interested in explanation, rather than political action, like Dawkins or Dennett.

But then I think he would have been disappointed, because as far as I know, neither Dawkins nor Dennett would have really disagreed with him. Sloan, and you, seem to think that Dawkins sees nothing good about religious beliefs, but I'm pretty sure he does. It's just that he also believes that despite these benefits, the negative effects of religion, and its falsehood make it worthy of criticism and ridicule.

To get back to Sloan, I of course do not think I'm misinterpreting him. I think he's being an apologist for religion, in an admittedly vague and relatively harmless kind of way. Of course he's not saying that religion is likely to be true, but he is saying that we shouldn't attack and ridicule it because it offers something of value that's not related to truth. In other words, I'm not putting Sloan in the opposite camp, as you've accused me of doing, he's putting himself there. I'm not telling him to shut up, he's telling us (the "new" atheists) to shut up, as does Scott Atran, as does Michael Shermer, as do Mooney and Nisbet.

But, as I said, this has nothing to do with the validity of his ideas about the correct explanation for religion. The two topics are completely disconnected. It could be demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt that religion is immensely useful to encourage peace and harmony in a society, and it wouldn't change my opinion that it should be done away with, not because I would deny the evidence, but because I put truth ahead of pretty much everything else, except survival.

Another way of putting it is that the conflict, if I'm right in my interpretation of Sloan, is between people who value truth more than peace and harmony and things like that, and people who do the opposite.

99. GOD VS. SCIENCE: A Debate Between Natalie Angier and David Sloan Wilson

Comment #92054 by Janus on November 29, 2007 at 7:20 pm

Bonzai:

Where does he say anything about how we "should" believe?

"With apologies to Natalie, I think there's a kind of a silliness to banging away at religious beliefs for their obvious falsehood, when in fact, if you're an evolutionist, the only way you would want to evaluate these beliefs is to examine what they cause people to do."

I also remember a quote from Sloan's book that was read by Daniel Dennett at AAI '07, which basically argued that it is more rational to believe something that is false if it makes you happy than to believe something that is true if it makes you miserable.

He is saying that there is a utility logic (among other things)to why people believe in what they do and it is the job of science to investigate that instead of just saying these people are idiots because their beliefs are false, end of story.

He is also saying that, yes. That's not all he's saying.

Of course this particular statement doesn't contradict what Dawkins and Dennett say in any way.

As Dawkins often says science is about telling us what the world is, rather that how it should be.

Exactly. So why does Sloan tell us that "the only way you would want to evaluate these beliefs is to examine what they cause people to do"?

It seems obvious that religion does have some benefits, either social or emotional at some time in some places or it wouldn't have lasted.

It may seem obvious but it's not necessarily true. An idea is more likely to propagate itself if it influences the behavior of its believer in such a way that he is likely to propagate the idea, which may or may not translate into an advantage for the believer and/or his society. For example, the belief that God will reward you with eternal bliss if you spend your life preaching His Word is a belief that is extremely good at propagating itself, and yet it doesn't have any benefit for its believer. That's basic memetic theory.

Now, that doesn't mean there aren't religious beliefs that provide benefits; there are many that do. The point is that just because a meme has survived a long time and propagated itself successfully doesn't mean it's good for its believer, it only means it's good for itself.

Anything that deviates from the script that religion is completely rubbish and should be nuked metaphorically would be heresy on this site.
According to some people here when it comes to religion there is no room for dispassionate scholarly inquiry. The only politically correct stance is being an atheist activist. Either you in the "movement" or you are out, either you are with us or against us. It is easy to be "against us", as long as you don't declare with a loud speaker that religion should be wiped off the face of the earth you must be a closet theist, some kind of counter revolutionary.

Of course this is all a figment of your own imagination. I've never seen a single atheist on this website who even comes close to what you're describing. Actually, I've never seen such an atheist on any of the websites I frequent.
But perhaps there is one and I simply haven't noticed him or her, in which case I'd be grateful if you could post a link.

Frankly, I think you're just one more alarmist who sees "atheistic dogma" and "cultish tendencies" everywhere.

100. GOD VS. SCIENCE: A Debate Between Natalie Angier and David Sloan Wilson

Comment #91991 by Janus on November 29, 2007 at 5:00 pm

Sloan's argument is based on the premise that we should base our beliefs (and our evaluation of other people's beliefs) on what is right from an evolutionary perspective, which is nothing more than the good old naturalistic fallacy.

That religious beliefs might benefit the ones who hold them doesn't mean they're above criticism and ridicule. It's only a description of reality; you can't derive 'ought' from 'is'.