51. 10 Questions for Heather Mac Donald

Comment #17461 by JohnC on January 14, 2007 at 12:01 am

Yep, that Manhattan Institute. Which is why it is with considerable pleasure that I have been reading the confusion and consternation of Mac Donald's co-thinkers. That RD's call to atheism can drive daggers into the reactionary bloc that has sustained Shrub's presidency is surely an unintended but welcome result.

But they are so stupid! Jospeph Knippenberg, for instance, starts his handwringing by lumping her in with Andrew Sullivan, who he describes as the leading "skeptical conservative". Now this is presumably because of Andrew's effective demolition job on the fundamentalist and what he calls Christianist right. But Sullivan is also a very public practising Catholic, and opposition to evangelical lunacy, however welcome, does not a skeptic make. (Sullivan is also a high-profile opponent of torture, of which Mac Donald is a leading defender.) So it's truly heartwarming to read Knippenberg's conclusion: "Rather than condemning or ridiculing her fellow conservatives, Mac Donald ought to recognize that she needs them as much as they need her." With luck, they'll all go down together, fighting each other all the way.

52. 10 Questions for Heather Mac Donald

Comment #17457 by JohnC on January 13, 2007 at 10:52 pm

And in a more satirical vein, http://www.slate.com/id/2112083/
Send a Message to God, her response in Slate to the pious babble that followed the tsunami, but seems to have been missed/overlooked by her religious allies.

53. 10 Questions for Heather Mac Donald

Comment #17456 by JohnC on January 13, 2007 at 10:44 pm

For more spirited debunking of religion following the American Conservative article, here is Mac Donald's reply to Mike Novak:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OGYxNDFiMzdiZjZjMDExZjYxYmUxODExMzBkYmUyYmQ=

A ferociously articulate, and hence often dangerous, right-wing pundit. But I am quite happy to see her use her undoubted talents to discomfit the theocons. They deserve each other.

54. How Old is the Grand Canyon? Park Service Won't Say

Comment #17442 by JohnC on January 13, 2007 at 6:26 pm

There are predictably several problems with this "explanation":
1. There is not one bookstore but up to six, and several of them don't have an "inspirational" section. This book can be shelved anywhere in these stores.
2. The bookstores are not like a local library, content is vetted and approved by a committee run by the NPS. The allegation is that this book was approved under poltical pressure. The allegation is supported by the fact that many books are regularly rejected for inclusion in the stores' stocklist and, as the PEER statement notes, this book was the only one approved for sale that year.
3. Reference to Native American books about the canyon are deeply misleading. These books do not present an alternative geology and claim current geological explanations are wrong. The text in question comes straight from the hardcore of Young Earth Creationism (contributors include Morris and Gish), and claims that their "flood geology" is the correct geological explanation and that current geological science is wrong.
4. Barna omits any reference to his 2003 undertaking for a high-level review of the book's inclusion. Why? Because no such review was ever undertaken.

Now, if I can work this out from the other side of the world, how is it that Barna is able to get away with such misleading apologetics without loud protests over there? Funny place, America.

55. For Human Eyes Only

Comment #17393 by JohnC on January 13, 2007 at 8:24 am

Certainly fascinating! But the almost irresistible temptation to start spinning Just-So stories from such data should be firmly resisted. For instance, there are two differences mentioned: 1. difference in visible white of eye 2. Attention from infancy to direction of gaze rather than head. And the second provides the "confirmatory" evidence upon which the further speculations are launched.

But the two cannot possibly be accounted for by the same genetic mechanism, and indeed the second is unlikely to be genetic at all. Experiment: expose new-born chimps to only human handlers and then evaluate whether they follow the eyes or the head. If they follow the eyes, then the "confirmatory" evidence is rendered invalid, and the possibility that the difference is a side-effect of, for instance, the massive morphological changes required to accommodate our larger brains, or some other explanation, rises to the top of the hypothesis list.

This spoiler is just off the top of my head (and may be quite wrong, not having seen the actual research data), but bitter experience shows we should all be deeply wary of jumping to conclusions on the basis of such intriguing initial data.

56. Gentle Rottweiler

Comment #17388 by JohnC on January 13, 2007 at 7:46 am

Sancus, being neither an American nor ever religious, it has only actually been through this forum that I've started to appreciate the difficulty many people over there feel about holding a position of open unbelief. It has been a sad eye-opener.

As for Richard, we are now in territory where he can speak for himself, if he chooses. I have already stated my views. And I am at heart a Gouldian!

57. Readers Write: Atheist Sam Harris on Torture and Faith

Comment #17372 by JohnC on January 13, 2007 at 4:08 am

Homo economicus, I'm sure that if you pull together the strands of your thinking on this, we are not too far apart, though for my money you may want to give more weight to the actual historical process (the moral zeitgeist) rather than simply intellectuallising the issue.

On Sam, the question is not about his right to say, but whether he is correct. I've stated my case, and I'll leave it at that.

58. Readers Write: Atheist Sam Harris on Torture and Faith

Comment #17361 by JohnC on January 13, 2007 at 3:12 am

Homo economicus, I have above described the "ticking bomb" scenario as "abstract" and then "cartoon" and consistently characterised it as dangerous, but offered no detailed argument. Perhaps now is the time to do so, since you do apparently take it seriously.
1. It has never occurred, and most likely never will in the actual law enforcement efforts to prevent terrorism (if it had I'm sure the Shrub admin would have told us about it). But meanwhile many people actually have been tortured already by the US or its surrogates in this phoney "war on terror".
2. International law, as quoted above, is unequivocal: there is simply no excuse - ever. Start rewriting that and we become part of the drive to effectively eliminate the Geneva conventions and other crucial human rights protocols by the most powerful country in world exempting itself from these provisions.
3. This is not some intellectual argument: the debate is occurring in a context where the US is debating its right to be exempted from provisions that were universally agreed to be at least morally binding, even if they may have circumvented in practice. The slippery slope is real, it's happening now.
4. It doesn't actually work, outside Hollywood. Sam glibly asserts that this is "a lie", but we have thousands of years of human history to prove that under torture the innocent will incriminate anyone and the guilty reveal nothing of significance. Maybe Sam should call for a random controlled trial, but I doubt it would get past an ethics committee anywhere.

In the end, the only reason that otherwise reasonable people at this site would even be discussing such a barbaric idea is through some misplaced tribal loyalty to Sam Harris. Well, maybe instead we should see it as an opportunity to help Sam rethink his position. There's a cruel irony in overthrowing one source of absolute truth only to replace it with another.

59. Readers Write: Atheist Sam Harris on Torture and Faith

Comment #17354 by JohnC on January 13, 2007 at 2:42 am

Well said, Sam :-)

60. Gentle Rottweiler

Comment #17348 by JohnC on January 13, 2007 at 2:06 am

Sancus, subtracting your peculiar American politics (which has led us way off-topic before) from consideration, you have actually identified something real. TGD was a political book, its effect was to "stir the pot", and this explains both its strengths and weaknesses. (Note: I am not divining Richard's intentions in writing TGD, but commenting on its effects. I wouldn't like Eagleton to accuse me of Intentional Fallacy!)

But as to Richard's courage, or lack of it. He has 2 years off compulsory retirement of what would have been a universally lauded career now cashed in his prestige and marshalled his undoubted talents to headline a cause that has attracted a huge amount of opprobrium on at least 2 continents. While I have not hesitated here to criticise aspects of TGD, I would not myself be so mean-spirited as to imply a lack of courage on his part.

As a "left-wing" atheist, I have been increasingly attracted to this site to both show my support for his efforts and in my own fumbling way to contribute to the debate - a real discussion which he both initiated and is nurturing through this site.

Meanwhile, we all find our own certainties, or more positively start learning to live with a lack of certainty. "Don't know" always sounds like a pretty good response to me.

61. Gentle Rottweiler

Comment #17338 by JohnC on January 13, 2007 at 1:25 am

Brian, I am actually deeply sympathetic to your point of view, but my own intellectual trajectory (which never involved religious belief) has gentled me towards a less judgemental approach on many issues on which I would previously been the bearer of indubitable certainty. Steve Gould's last book of essays I Have Landed is a moving and insightful exploration - in practice - of how these different dialogues can co-exist without corrupting one's sense of truth and integrity. And it's a volume that bears repeated readings ...

62. FiveLive debate on faith and discrimination

Comment #17334 by JohnC on January 13, 2007 at 1:02 am

"I believe people should be allowed to discriminate against whoever they want. It's their businesses, so let them run it how they feel." - yeahok

I'm sorry, but you've just excluded yourself from some of the most important social developments of the past 50 years - the moral zeitgeist, as Richard would say. Such a stupid position would, I'm sure, have played well in the 1950s in South Africa or the Deep South of the US, but today is deplored in national and international law as applied across the developed world. The fact one is operating a "business" does not provide exemption from the moral and legal obligations to treat your fellow human beings fairly and without prejudice.

63. Gentle Rottweiler

Comment #17331 by JohnC on January 13, 2007 at 12:47 am

Brian, having delivered myself of the main argument, I just wanted to add an additional point. In the original thread on Terry's review (in which we both participated) justified concerns were raised several times about an undercurrent of anti-intellectualism, which I found somewhat disturbing. In your post, phrases such as "academic constructs" and "wordy critique" invoke the same sense of foreboding (I actually find his prose positively sparkling). And while at one level it is perfectly legitimate to denounce theology as "bunkum" - the level which you perceptively recognised as "soundbite" - that is not the only story in town. Theological discourses (from Aboriginal Dreamtime stories through to Hans Kuhn) are also historic documents of humanity's struggles to find meaning in the world and our lives, which is I suspect the direction from which Eagleton is approaching the question. We need to find ways of accommodating such different approaches while making common cause against the religious insanities you mention, and more.

64. Gentle Rottweiler

Comment #17330 by JohnC on January 13, 2007 at 12:26 am

Russell and Brian, this New Humanist piece was particularly interesting because it gave Richard the opportunity to respond to a number of Eagleton's main points in the context of a sympathetic interview. And there is no Eagleton & Co., since I cannot imagine such a critique coming from any other public intellectual, combining as it does his own ultimate skepticism about theism - "now it may well be that all this is no more plausible than the tooth fairy. Most reasoning people these days will see excellent grounds to reject it" - attached to a masterfully concise summary of a non-dogmatic Christian theology with a series of well-targeted political criticisms.

The real problem is that Eagleton misunderstands the project that TGD represents. It is not an intellectual new synthesis for religious skepticism in the 21st century; it is a popular rallying cry to do battle against actually existing religious insanity around the world. TGD was not intended as a scholarly engagement with theological discourse, but as a tonic for unbelievers and a lifeline for the waverers. And in these goals it has succeeded admirably.

Now on the specific question of theology. In the interview Dawkins' position is circular; in TGD it is not, as he does actually deal with the "main proofs" theology has provided. I made both points in my earlier post. But the latter operation depends entirely on defining belief in God as a hypothesis equivalent to any other empirical proposition. And this is entirely the point at issue.

So Eagleton's complaint remains, and needs to be understood. Why? Because time and again we have seen people at this site express incomprehension at the fact that intensely intelligent scientists (Ken Miller comes to mind) who are nonetheless religious. Understand what Eagleton is saying, and you start to understand how that is possible. These people are not suffering from a mental disorder, they are not stupid, and they are deserving of our respect.

We are not dealing with Jerry Falwell here, and this is not a debate with two sides. It is entirely possible that both Richard and Terry - two of the best known British intellectuals - are both "right" but are on different trajectories launched from different starting points with their paths nonetheless intersecting. It is these points of intersection that provide the opportunity for us to enrich our own understanding.

65. Gentle Rottweiler

Comment #17314 by JohnC on January 12, 2007 at 10:06 pm

Your point is well taken, thalesian, but I would argue those individuals responsible for the underground railroads and such would have acted that way regardless. I don't believe it was religion that endeared them to stick their necks out. - hmsbeagle3

Thalesian's point is well taken, but it is simply not viable to baldly assert that religion is not a motivating factor in doing good, when the people in question make clear that it is. You cannot dismiss, for instance, the 1970s role of liberation theology in Latin America in the struggle against US-backed dictatorships. Richard himself is at pains to point out that he is not denying the positive contributions of religion.

66. Gentle Rottweiler

Comment #17311 by JohnC on January 12, 2007 at 9:52 pm

Richard's retort to Eagleton's line on theology ("I think that my point about fairy-ology entirely disposes of that") is of course circular. To be able to assert that theology is a non-discipline you need first to have disposed of the arguments theologians raise about the existence of God. Otherwise one is like a creationist saying (which they do) that they don't have to consider the arguments of modern biologists about evolution because they have already falsified evolution based on the account of it given by Duane Gish.

Now, in fact, TGD does deal with theological arguments (in Chapter 3) as it must, and Eagleton's complaint was that Richard's treatment showed him to be "complacently ignorant of its toughest case". It seems to me the only defence here is to say that TGD is a popular book dealing with the reasons held by believers, who after all do not hold their faith because of obscure arguments of even obscurer theologians. This defence is stronger than it looks at first glance since the concept of God to which "sophisticated" theologians retreat when pressed bears little or no relationship to the deity that believers actually worship. The linkage between academic discourse and real-world belief is actually provided by "revelation", which could probably have done with a stronger treatment in TGD given its centrality in the whole edifice of these superstitions.

But there is no doubt that the Eagleton critique continues to get a hearing because it latches onto several points that are not well handled in TGD, and have not been satisfactorily dealt with by Richard since, IMHO :-)

67. Halting progress

Comment #17267 by JohnC on January 12, 2007 at 1:56 pm

Grayling wrote, "Their actions constitute an obscenity against human rights". That is tantamount to a claim for an overarching standard regardless of social or cultural context.

Gimli, get a grip. The quote you use abut human rights points to the premier example of the convergence of ethical frameworks of which I wrote. Indeed, legal action in Australia to enforce its obligations as a signatory to the UN convention on human rights was used to overturn the last sodomy statutes, in the state of Tasmania. And certainly endorsement of the values enshrined in that convention are shared in various forms by all developed countries in both statute and spirit.

I wrote: "Grayling's fine polemic draws on the values agreed by all at the core of the framework to make a case for what is for Britain, apparently, a case of frictional change at the boundary." And you cavil at "fine polemic" in what appears to be a petty attempt to avoid the substance of the argument you pretend to answer. Poor show.

68. FiveLive debate on faith and discrimination

Comment #17226 by JohnC on January 12, 2007 at 6:32 am

Well, we've flushed out another atheist bigot. And the justification is to equate a person's sexuality (surely a central part of all our identities) with a preference for peanut butter.

Sorry, kestasjk, "private businesses" are required to operate within a forest of legal restraints and obligations which we - society - have progressively developed in response to the growing complexity and, yes, social progress, from which we have all benefited. The requirement not to withhold services from your fellow citizens on ground that they are women, or black, or Jewish, or disabled, is like occupational health and safety, public liability, environmental regulations, taxation, zoning etc etc part of the accepted framework within which even the obdurately reactionary business operates.

But now ... we extend that set of obligations a millimetre or two to include not discriminating against gay people and suddenly we have ridiculous disquistions about peanut butter.

Homophobe.

69. Halting progress

Comment #17225 by JohnC on January 12, 2007 at 6:11 am

Since morality is simply of our own devising anyway, a mere matter of personal, subjective opinion it seems strange that he can be so definite in his castigation of the religious.
- gimlibengloin

Perhaps it is time to lay this canard to rest, though I am under no illusion that this will stop our dwarfish friend launching further posts on the same baseless premise.

The fact that morality is not derived from some transcendent and hence absolute source does not mean that in any given society the difference between acceptable/unacceptable is just "a mere matter of personal opinion". Quite clearly, all societies operate within a frame of ethical standards by which the behaviour of its members are judged and regulated. That this ethical framework is socially constructed (though it has certain biological anchor points common to all human societies) does not make it any less recognisable to the social actors whom it binds. In fact, texts such as Leviticus are only intelligible at all when seen within somesuch historicist framework (which is why Richard and Sam can score so many polemical points off this 3000yo tribal document).

This ethical framework is within any given context naturally conservative (ie resists change), so in more dynamic societies there will be continual friction at the boundaries even if the overall envelope remains remarkably stable. Grayling's fine polemic draws on the values agreed by all at the core of the framework to make a case for what is for Britain, apparently, a case of frictional change at the boundary.

From the context of Afghanistan this debate looks like a confirmation of "Western decadence", while from here in Australia it seems like a surprising outbreak of social backwardness. But the dissonance of these different perspectives doesn't make any of them arbitrary. They are the products of the specific histories of these different societies. The question is whether we can/should effect a convergence of our ethical frameworks as our global society becomes ever more interdependent on its component parts.

And what will that convergence look like! This is where the battle against Iron Age edicts and their fantasy foundations really has a role to play. But in itself, it is not enough; not enough to be against what we don't like. We must have some kind of vision of what we are for, and a crucial part of that vision is surely a world freed from intolerance and discrimination. And free of the fantasies that sustain such evils.

70. FiveLive debate on faith and discrimination

Comment #17217 by JohnC on January 12, 2007 at 4:27 am

The lady from the Christian Lawyers Fellowship sounds like a nice person

Not "nice", clever! and therefore dangerous. I've been around long enough to have heard lots of "nice" racists in days gone by, before such things became socially unacceptable. Just replay her contributions and substitute jew or jewish etc at the appropriate points and you start to see how contemptible she actually is. And jew is a more appropriate analogue than black since for most of the past 2000 years "sodomy" and "jewishness" have been condemned within the same theological framework. Beneath contempt.

71. FiveLive debate on faith and discrimination

Comment #17214 by JohnC on January 12, 2007 at 4:04 am

Just listened to this "debate" and couldn't actually believe that I was listening to something recorded in Britain in 2007, and by the BBC! NSW, Australia (where I live) amended its Anti-Discrimination Act to cover homosexuality in 1981 - that's 25 years ago!

Still (since the Lords actually passed the changes), it is in one way perhaps all to the good. I cannot imagine that such spectacular displays of intolerance can have any other effect than further weakening support for the organised religion.

Speaking of which, Pew Research in the US has just released a report that shows the proportion of those aged 18-25 who identify with "no religion/agnostic/atheist" has grown from 11% in 1987 to 20% in 2006. Now that's an astounding rise in a decade, for those of us who make a habit of looking at such demographics. And 63% agree that humans evolved.

So there's light at the end of what is admittedly still a very long tunnel. We're winning.

72. Readers Write: Atheist Sam Harris on Torture and Faith

Comment #17140 by JohnC on January 11, 2007 at 5:49 am

G Bile wrote: What if: *We capture someone who might know where it is*. Torture or not?

It's worse than that. The Shrub Administration has since 9/11 given itself the right to declare anyone in the world (US resident or anywhere else) an "enemy combatant", kill or kidnap them, and in the latter case hand them over to a third-party (Egypt is a favourite) to really torture them; and then intern them outside US borders in a legal situation that denies them the central foundation of the justice system, habeas corpus, where they are only "sort of" tortured. The recent farce before the mid-terms was simply an attempt by Shrub to formally legalise these practices.

And in the face of this obscenity, Sam publicly ruminates on a cartoon ethical argument about "ticking bombs" to arrive at the conclusion that torture could in fact be justified. But who would decide: this same God-soaked and incompetent regime that gave us the Iraq invasion, which Sam supported.
Added: My NYT news summary has just reported that the deluded simpleton who is also the most powerful man in the world has announced, as expected, an indefinite US troop increase of 20,000 to Iraq.

Wake up people!

73. Readers Write: Atheist Sam Harris on Torture and Faith

Comment #17138 by JohnC on January 11, 2007 at 5:22 am

However, the debate which is resulting from their opposing non-theistic viewpoints is interesting and informative.

Indeed! While it is easy enough (and fun) for us to join in choruses of denunciation against obvious lunacy, it is much more revealing to explore the fracture lines of our own rationality. Personally, I was actually amazed by Sam's considered response (summary of his position) to Gorenfeld's article, and was torn by the same feeling that many here have expressed: I love Sam's polemical style, it has a clarity that represents the best of the American tradition in which he stands; but on the issues identified he is simply wrong (on torture, shockingly so; the rest, perhaps just foolishly soft). But let us (including Sam) confront things as they actually are, not how we would wish them to be, and apply the same standards of skeptical inquiry that we are urging on everyone else. We are not a just another mob. To quote myself :-)

This site's banner proclaims itself as a "clear-thinking oasis". Let's not allow the stampeding herd to turn it into a muddy swamp.

74. Readers Write: Atheist Sam Harris on Torture and Faith

Comment #17129 by JohnC on January 11, 2007 at 3:06 am

Gorenfeld's burning words regarding bogus atheism leads to sterilization of the human experience

I don't think so. As I've said elsewhere, I have no problem with Sam wanting to reclaim the word "spiritual", though others have expressed misgivings. Nor with exploring what the meditation experience can tell us about the mind.

But that is million miles away from going into print repeatedly and refusing to disavow obvious charlatans such as Rudin and Stevenson. And if you are worried about Gorenfeld's "burning words", wait till Richard Dawkins starts his planned assault on New Age quakery this year!

"Paranormal research" is not "unfairly stigmatised"; it is relentlessly promoted by legions of New Age and other charlatans, whose nostrums are often uncritically regurgitated by the popular media. In the probability stakes, unicorns, astrology and alien abduction are more probable phenonema than reincarnation, which at a minimum requires a supernatural conception of memory and the personality.

75. Readers Write: Atheist Sam Harris on Torture and Faith

Comment #17100 by JohnC on January 10, 2007 at 8:21 pm

"distorting his interview with Sam Harris"

What distortion? Gorenfeld's article is a polemical dismantling of Sam's actual position.

76. Homophobia, not injustice, is what really fires the faiths

Comment #17077 by JohnC on January 10, 2007 at 4:12 pm

Joadist, anti-discrimination laws in common law jurisdictions typically do not require "definitions" of homosexual or woman or black etc. They outlaw discriminating against someone because you perceive/believe them to be homosexual or of a different race, etc.

77. Readers Write: Atheist Sam Harris on Torture and Faith

Comment #17074 by JohnC on January 10, 2007 at 3:49 pm

People are of course free to agree or disagree with Sam's views, but maintaining that he was taken out of context or that his views have been distorted by Gorenfeld is clearly wrong. Read Sam's own summary: he supports torture and refuses to disavow known paranormal crackpots. So where's the distortion?

To repeat part of my own comment from the previous thread:
On torture: I'm afraid Sam's abstract thought experiments to justify his position do not stack up as serious arguments in favour of permitting torture. The UN Convention Against Torture and the Geneva conventions on which they are based are historic conquests that emerged from the revulsion of all civilized nations against the horrors of the 20th century. Any attempt to discard or circumvent these conventions discounts the lives and suffering of millions which led to their acceptance in the first place. And remember, the horrors of torture are not just confined to the victims; the practice brutalises the perpetrators just as much, perhaps more. What next? Public execution? We just had one of those, didn't we? Corporal punishment? Remember that the caning of that American boy whipped up a huge reserve of support for the reintroduction of caning in the US. It's a line in the sand, Sam.

Article 2.2 of the UN Convention says: "No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture." Sam either supports the convention, or he does not (yes, it really is binary). If he does not, then I oppose him on this issue.

78. Intelligent design is a science, not a faith

Comment #17009 by JohnC on January 10, 2007 at 4:36 am

"scientific evidence"
We have a general idea of what evidence means, but what is "scientific evidence". Surely, it can only mean empirical data gathered by scientists using methodologies generally agreed - then or subsequently - as valid by the discipline and then subject to scrutiny through the peer-review process. Further validation may be provided through replication of the results by independent researchers, or various other empirical tests, depending on the discipline and situation. The significance of such evidence of course depends upon its integration into a theory (model, paradigm, heuristic ... pick your epistemologist) that is itself judged on criteria such as explanatory and predictive success, internal consistency, ability to generate new research programs, etc.

Yoo-hoo! ID where are you? Off with Buggs Bunny - Britain's answer to Michael Behe? I hope so.

79. Intelligent design is a science, not a faith

Comment #16997 by JohnC on January 10, 2007 at 3:09 am

wg, that (to paraphrase) "x has the appearance of being designed involves an ignorance of the discipline of design" actually points to a broad problem. In general, science is deeply counter-intuitive, starting with Newton's First Law of Motion. Those of us fortunate enough to have absorbed a good science education forget that many, perhaps most, people just don't get it. RD is terribly eloquent about the beauty and simplicity of the theory of natural selection but if they haven't already understood it then he may as well be reciting from the Rosetta Stone. And on design, the natural assumption (able-bodied) people make about their own bodies is that they were perfectly formed (a common expression about babies) but break through misuse and eventually overuse. Yet the starting assumption is wrong. Your wonderful pedagogical expample shows that it takes work (real education) to break through the world of everyday assumptions and "common sense" to a disciplined, scientific understanding. And that's why science education is the main point of attack for these ID desperados.

80. Intelligent design is a science, not a faith

Comment #16987 by JohnC on January 10, 2007 at 1:01 am

Wonderful, wg.

Although there is an obvious retort to the sewer-amusement-park joke. Yahweh never intended it that way - it's actually our fault. Something to do with talking snakes and apples, I believe.

I'm sure a careful study of the scriptures will provide equally cogent answers to all those other questions about haemorrhoids and hernias. O, ye of little faith!

81. Sam Harris's Faith in Eastern Spirituality and Muslim Torture

Comment #16985 by JohnC on January 10, 2007 at 12:50 am

No, it's not, GoodbyeGodNZ, no it's not. You may want to try engaging your brain before you let those fingers loose on the keyboard.

82. Reason, Unfettered by Faith

Comment #16982 by JohnC on January 10, 2007 at 12:29 am

I hate to interrupt this epistemology love-fest, but it seems clear that this article was couched in terms of "faith and reason" because that was the name of course component in question (and one reason I referenced the original document in my earlier post).

As Professor Krauss is also the only physicist ever to have been awarded the highest awards of all three major US physics societies, I am sure he would have an informed view on the relationship between science and reason. Suggesting his article is somehow buying into "clerics' terminology" by not entering into a disquisition on the matter is a preposterously long bow to draw, even if it did provide some pleasant diversions :-)

83. Secular fundamentalists are the new totalitarians

Comment #16977 by JohnC on January 10, 2007 at 12:04 am

Andrew, I feel like I could write a book on this topic, but not today :-) It is clear though that the problems being experienced in many European countries are a result of poor or non-existent social policies that have failed to make the usually poorly educated Muslim immigrants full participants and beneficiaries in their societies. Thanks for the cheap labour, but we won't be spending any of that money on you! This is where I think Sam Harris, in particular, goes veering off in a particularly dangerous direction. The fact the 9/11 crew were middle class (a standard retort of his) has got nothing to do with it. The Qaeda planners were hardly going to send illiterate Afghani peasants to American flight schools. US foreign policy, including the CIA creating the international mujahideen in the first place, has got a lot to answer for; but Sam's politics precludes him seeing/saying this.

By way of illustration, I came across some research that showed 25% of Muslim males (aged 16-55) in Australia are not circumcised. Given the non-negotiable status of this barbarism in Islam, this can only mean that these men identify as "Muslim" only in the loosest cultural sense. The lesson I draw is that you can only expect people to voluntarily adopt Western values (including secularism) if they can share in the fruits of Western progress. As one of our most famous word-manglers once said: "They've cooked their own goose, now they can lie in it." Take note, Dubya.

84. Intelligent design is a science, not a faith

Comment #16963 by JohnC on January 9, 2007 at 9:09 pm

Buggs actually writes better than he presents. There's some footage of him somewhere here, and he looked for all the world like some overgrown Catholic schoolboy trying to convince the priest he had never masturbated. I was quite encouraged that he was the best the Brit IDers could field for the cameras.

It's a shame though that The Guardian thinks running this sort of drivel actually represents legitimate debate. It's like giving comment space to Holocaust deniers.

85. Reason, Unfettered by Faith

Comment #16864 by JohnC on January 9, 2007 at 9:30 am

The original taskforce report (pdf) is here:
http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~secfas/Gen_Ed_Prelim_Report.pdf
and does not read as something obviously whacky, although it has got some odd things, such as under the Religion and Science heading the suggested topic of "Einstein's critique of quantum physics". (What would RD say?)

And there is some semblance of reason in its justifications:

Ninety-four percent of Harvard's incoming students report that they discuss religion "frequently" or "occasionally," and seventy-one percent say that they attend religious services. When they get to college, students often struggle—sometimes for the first time in their lives—to sort out the relationship between their own beliefs and practices, the different beliefs and practices of fellow students, and the profoundly secular and intellectual world of the academy itself.

So the proposal was not "insane", but simply a wrong-headed response to a real issue: namely, the unbelievably religiose environment that is the USofA.

86. Sermons and straw men

Comment #16832 by JohnC on January 9, 2007 at 4:27 am

Having worked as a therapist with the substance abuse/addiction community, I can tell you that the 'constant questioning of intelligence' of those who are addicted in order to support their breakdown of denial is quite useful.

The analogy between addiction and belief is interesting but hardly compelling. Clearly there are a large number of Christians, for instance, who are very intelligent indeed and whose faith does not entail the sort of everyday disconfirmation which confronts every alcoholic and addict. Despite what some people here might like to believe, people such as Ken Miller are not in a state of cognitive dissonance that is the daily reality of the intelligent addict.

87. Secular fundamentalists are the new totalitarians

Comment #16831 by JohnC on January 9, 2007 at 4:09 am

Affront, I cannot speak for Toby but I was alerted by his reference to Nick Spencer's extended pamphlet for the Theos Foundation, with introduction by the Archbishop of Cantebuty, that this is a CofE wing whose concern is about the place of faith in the "public square". Underlying their concern, if I can speculate, is that the harder line being taken against Muslim symbols such as the hijab is, and will increasingly be used, to squeeze them further out of their previously honoured position. But the UK contributors who have been following these developments may be in a better position than I to comment.

Meanwhile, the French move was nominally not about the oppression of women but about the secular state, with a subtext of the conservative government being seen to address the "threat" of a large and growing Islamic community. The policy once promulgated, of course, develops a life of its own, allowing people to attach whatever meaning they like to it ...

Mr Jones may be confused, but he is not simple.

88. Reason, Unfettered by Faith

Comment #16824 by JohnC on January 9, 2007 at 2:33 am

In that same speech the pope criticized scientists for being too rational. To the best of my knowledge there were no riots by scientists following that statement.

LOL, denoir.

I might just add what I think could be a more pertinent difference. RD is an ideologue, which allows him to make the disinction between battles (eg ID) and the war (religion). Krauss, in the American traditon, is a pragmatist who would regard the distinction as self-defeating (you win the war by winning the battles). The effect of which is, for instance, a quite different approach to religious "moderates". And here, I am with Krauss. Ken Miller is school biology's best friend. And quite frankly I don't care what he's thinking about when he eats his communion wafer, given his role as a powerful advocate for the teaching of science in general, and biology in particular.

But the record shows both approaches working in tandem may deliver results. I certainly have been surprised by TGD's success in the US, which has got to be a good thing ...

89. Reason, Unfettered by Faith

Comment #16815 by JohnC on January 9, 2007 at 1:11 am

One definition of sanity is accepting the reality of the world around us, as evidenced by our senses. In the modern world, our senses are aided by modern science, so the reality of the universe includes such things as the historical facts of evolution and the age of the earth.

And that's as good a starting point as any for dialogue with the obdurately religiose American public as you'll find. Krauss, as I have pointed out before, is a genuine activist for the defence of biology in the US education system, though he himself is a physicist. By activist, I mean someone who goes through the tiresome business of meetings, forming coalitions, schmoozing people who you really don't like, placards and leaflets, etc. He should be one of our heroes, so it is probably apposite to remind people of the somewhat churlish reception his critical, but positive review of TGD received at this site:
http://richarddawkins.net/article,238,Sermons-and-straw-men,Lawrence-M-Krauss--Nature

90. Sam Harris's Faith in Eastern Spirituality and Muslim Torture

Comment #16810 by JohnC on January 9, 2007 at 12:22 am

Re-reading this thread, I note that in Sam's introductory remarks he accuses Gorenfeld of malicious distortion. Well, I'm sorry, I don't see it. Sam handily provided a summary of his views, which clearly backs up the substance of the article complained of, and on which I based my post above. I'm sure we would all like to know if toddlers start speaking in ancient tongues, but if all we have to go on is a claim by a certifiable charlatan, then how is this different from weeping statues of the Virgin or the miracles of healing attributed to wannabe saints? The question for Sam is: Why mention crackpots like Stevenson and Radin at all? It was he, not Gorenfeld who put them on the agenda, and even now refuses to take them off.

And despite the professions of solidarity with Sam earlier in this thread, I have no doubt that if we had taken his reply and posted it under another name, then the very same people would have been convulsed in paroxysms of protest at this pro-torture, New Age egghead, while Gorenfeld's article would have been lauded as an insightful expose.

This site's banner proclaims itself as a "clear-thinking oasis". Let's not allow the stampeding herd to turn it into a muddy swamp.

91. Sam Harris's Faith in Eastern Spirituality and Muslim Torture

Comment #16803 by JohnC on January 8, 2007 at 9:42 pm

On torture: I'm afraid Sam's abstract thought experiments to justify his position do not stack up as serious arguments in favour of permitting torture. The UN Convention Against Torture and the Geneva conventions on which they are based are historic conquests that emerged from the revulsion of all civilized nations against the horrors of the 20th century. Any attempt to discard or circumvent these conventions discounts the lives and suffering of millions which led to their acceptance in the first place. And remember, the horrors of torture are not just confined to the victims; the practice brutalises the perpetrators just as much, perhaps more. What next? Public execution? We just had one of those, didn't we? Corporal punishment? Remember that the caning of that American boy whipped up a huge reserve of support for the reintroduction of caning in the US. It's a line in the sand, Sam.

Article 2.2 of the UN Convention says: "No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture." Sam either supports the convention, or he does not (yes, it really is binary). If he does not, then I oppose him on this issue.

On paranormal. Sam says in his reply that he cannot categorically dismiss Dean Radin's book. Now you don't have to be James Randi to realize that Radin and his outfit are charlatans. What evidence - using the same standards as would be applied to any other scientific claim - is there? None. By all means let's not be closed to the possibility that someone could produce evidence, but until that happens what is the difference between such claims and stories of unicorns or virgin births?

On meditation and the "spiritual". Personally, I agree with Sam that we needn't surrender the word "spiritual" to the supernaturalists, but I recognise other people's misgivings while continuing to use the word myself. And meditation is clearly a mental discipline that opens up interesting lines of inquiry into the nature of consciousness. But I don't think this gives one licence for dewy-eyed acceptance of any claims of superiority for Eastern religious traditions. The Dalai Lama, for instance, may be a New Age pop star, but the tradition that he represents is a backward, feudal theocracy that was hardly a source of enlightenment for the Tibetan peasantry (not that that justifies the brutal Chinese occupation, either). Let's keep our feet on the ground and head out of the clouds.

92. Without God, Gall Is Permitted

Comment #16782 by JohnC on January 8, 2007 at 5:46 pm

Rereading this article, it seems the complaint is about style: "lack of charm or skill", "contumely and condescension", etc. But atheists, even "new atheists" come in many different stripes. Look at some of the Beyond Belief conference and Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Lawrence Krauss or Annie Druyan, for instance. But the difference is that Richard and Sam have actually broken through onto the best-seller lists to a wider audience. And this is surely related to their more confrontational and urgent approach: Religion is mad, bad and dangerous, and here's why, to paraphrase. This apparently offends Sam Schulman's sensibilities. But clearly there are many in America who find this approach refreshing in that God-soaked culture, which has been gripped by a frightening rise in the political power of the religious right.

So don't attack the messenger for ensuring their message actually gets through.

93. Hybrid embryo work 'under threat'

Comment #16777 by JohnC on January 8, 2007 at 4:44 pm

I'm with denoir @ 12 and 14. The most pressing bio-ethical questions of the next 100 years will be in areas of genomic research, yet public understanding (including by politicians) is very poor. This is one of the reasons that the attacks on biology by the religious right are so dangerous.

Many of the issues are economic rather than directly "moral". The drive by business to patent genes is offensive - surely the global gene pool is one thing that should genuinely be a matter of our collective ownership. And the record so far of corporations such as Monsanto in the deployment of crop technologies, particularly in the Third World, is appalling.

But with the kind of posturing by Bush to appease his religious base being the only information that many people are getting, the debates are highly distorted. Scientists have a responsibility to speak clearly on these issues in the public interest, not just in favour of their personal grant applications or, worse, as mouthpieces of their business paymasters.

94. Secular fundamentalists are the new totalitarians

Comment #16696 by JohnC on January 8, 2007 at 5:19 am

In fairness, the issue he wants to address is a real issue of public policy - ie rules governing the wearing of religious symbols by civil service and other personnel. But he gets off on the wrong foot (and stays hopping throughout) by confusing the issue of secularism with atheism (which is how RD gets dragged into the polemic). The fact is that there is nothing about atheism (rejection of belief in a creator god) that would indicate what the correct policy is when it comes, say, to school girls wearing the hijab in state schools. Christians, atheists and others are likely to have a range of views, particularly since most of us are deeply disturbed by the obverse, namely the legal requirement for women to be "covered up" in many Muslim countries.

But by tangling these questions up with a everything from post-modernism to some imagined "fundamentalist" conspiracy to liquidate religion, the whole thing becomes an intemperate attack on any and all perceived challenges to his beliefs. A confused mind at work.

95. Secular fundamentalists are the new totalitarians

Comment #16684 by JohnC on January 8, 2007 at 4:03 am

Two points of substance that are probably worth some attention.

1. "...[w]e live in a cultural milieu dominated by postmodernism ... but because it doesn't believe in truth, anything goes. The tyranny of orthodoxy has been replaced by the tyranny of relativism."
Now Jones's little neck of the woods (English and culutural studies) may in recent times have suffered an influx of such philosophies, but such thinking is a million miles away from science in general and RD's blend of rationalism in particular. Has Toby never heard of the Sokal hoax? Richard, I'm sure, would hold to the position that one believes something to be true based on the evidence, with the strength of one's convictions being broadly proportionate to the weight of that evidence. And that after all is the reason for rejecting belief in a creator god, and why the overwhelming majority of top scientists are atheists.

2. "Christians feel particularly aggrieved because we believe that Jesus invented secularism ..." then skipping over the intervening eighteen hundred years from this "invention" of Jesus to the actual emergence of a secular state, including the freedom of religious belief and practice. A period which saw Christianity adopted as the official state religion of the Roman empire, the Dark Ages, feudalism, the absolutist state with the divine right of kings, the Inquistion, the reformation ... and the American and French revolutions. It is highly likely that the early Jesus movement was in favour of religious tolerance, as is the case for all sects struggling to survive in a hostile political environment, but the record shows that as soon as they got their hands on the levers of power they held on to them with a tenacity and ferocity unmatched by any religion in history. Christianity did not relinquish State power, it was taken from them through a complex historical process coincident with the period we call the Enlightenment.

96. Divided by a common language: Richard Dawkins clarifies his position

Comment #15689 by JohnC on January 2, 2007 at 4:43 am

The petition requests the PM to introduce a specific law.

No it doesn't. One could call for banning of fox hunting, which is a specific, highly organised activity. But what does it mean to "make it illegal to indoctrinate or define children by religion".

97. Divided by a common language: Richard Dawkins clarifies his position

Comment #15681 by JohnC on January 2, 2007 at 2:32 am

Donald, while there's no doubting your fine intentions, if you organise a petition to parliament, a minister, or the prime minister it is not because you want them to believe some amorphous proposition but because you want them to do something: change or revoke a policy or introduce a new policy. The petition you signed is naively foolish because it does not specify want it wants the UK government to do; it's a complaint without content.

98. Divided by a common language: Richard Dawkins clarifies his position

Comment #15675 by JohnC on January 2, 2007 at 12:28 am

Sancus,
While Nick's generalisation is probably irrelevant to the whole issue of the petition (it would have been as equally naive and unspecificied in Uzbekhistan as the USA) and not well served by some of his examples, it is not entirely without merit.

I think what is points to is that the perception of Americans of the relationship between state and private, civil and political society, actually does stand at one pole of the continuum when compared with other developed countries. This is certainly one way of understanding the co-existence of extreme patriotism and extreme individualism that many people find so disturbing about the public persona of the US, yet many Americans find so inspiring.

But this is probably not the place to probe the matter further. I think the point is that Nick was looking for a frame within which to understand what was in the end nothing more than a silly misunderstanding.

99. Divided by a common language: Richard Dawkins clarifies his position

Comment #15653 by JohnC on January 1, 2007 at 10:04 pm

The entire affair throws into relief some interesting issues:
1. A number of us have from time to time commented on the fact that RD displays a certain political naivety, often shared by his most enthusiastic admirers. He now charmingly confirms this impression: "I'm out of my depth here." There is nothing wrong with this, and he is clearly comfortable with making his main contribution in the world of ideas rather than political strategies. Everyone should keep this in mind, not just with the education issue but also when reflecting on his views on, for instance, religious moderates.
2. On the other hand I would regard his comments about what he meant by "consciousness-raising" as particularly politically acute. The point is about changing the topography of what is socially acceptable. And it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that even religiously inclined parents can come to recognise the wisdom of a living pluralism in their child-rearing.
3. One person's indoctrination is another person's socialisation. In Australia (and elsewhere) the Catholic Church runs a large network of schools that since the 1960s here have received some government funding. Many parents send their children to these not for the religious component but because they believe such schools are better at inculcating values such as "respect for your elders", "concern for the poor". When I asked my 16yo's half-brother, who goes to such a school, whether he believed any of the religious doctrine to which he was regularly exposed, he looked at me as if I had just gone temporarily mad. "Of course not," he sneered with adolescent contempt.
4. Nonethess, such schools are obviously a major transmission belt for religious fantasy, and government funding would be simple illegal in the US. On the other hand, in Australia where private schools do receive funding there are very tight guidelines about the curriculum that is taught, and there is generally not a problem about the subversion of biology etc.
5. In all common law jurisdictions, the courts recognise that the key issue is to determine what is in the "best interests of the child". As a rule they accept wide parental discretion in determining those interests, but have no hesitation in overriding parents in cases where they see the child's interests compromised - physical and sexual abuse, proper care, medical treatment. Cases of religious sects are of particular interest, because I am not aware of any instances where filling a child's head with religious or other nonsense is in and of itself regarded as sufficient justification from intervention. The plaintiffs in such cases, usually social welfare agencies, invariably have to demonstrate actual abuse or neglect or incompetence before the courts will act. This is probably a good thing since, up until recent times here and perhaps in many other jurisdictions today, bringing up a child as an atheist would according to prevailing social norms be regarded as abuse if the test were extended to intellectual environment.

100. How Old is the Grand Canyon? Park Service Won't Say

Comment #15412 by JohnC on December 31, 2006 at 4:40 am

Brian, by everything I have read on this site you are an admirable advertisement for casting off the shackles of religious dogmatism. Does this tell us much about belief vs unbelief in general? I don't think so. But this does not mean we are engaged in a pointless battle, just that the results we might expect are mediated through a host of intermediate factors.