51. Believe it or not, courtesy counts

Comment #84413 by Nick Good on November 2, 2007 at 2:46 am

Why can't atheists see sacred texts as sacred to believers and behave respectfully when not provoked?

Because all too many theists, feel obliged to intervene in temporal matters on behalf of their alleged deity, claiming to know this deity's mind.

Often these proxy temporal interventions by theists on behalf of their alleged deity, are damaging.

That cuts it as being "provoked" to me, and no doubt others.

52. AAI 07

Comment #83502 by Nick Good on October 30, 2007 at 8:34 am

Brian wrote: Still, there does appear to be a left trend in atheist circles
Gobby atheist perhaps. It might be that lefties tend to be the sort of folks that are more likely to sound off. I posit that you are rather less likely to get artisans, entrepreneurs and professional folk gobbing off about what they don't believe in!

I suspect there is a casual relationship rather than a causal relationship here. Most folks, at least in developed countries, cluster around the political centre. There are plenty of centrist atheists, I meet them all the time.

53. AAI 07

Comment #83495 by Nick Good on October 30, 2007 at 8:05 am

This Chapman fellow seems to be on a bit of a lefty mission. That's fine, but let's not assume that lefty politics are any kind of pre requisite or necessary condition for lack of superstition.

Oh and what was the geezer chewing? I found it rather off-putting.

54. Evolution to be taught in SA schools

Comment #83200 by Nick Good on October 29, 2007 at 9:07 am

I live in South Africa; indeed I'm typing this from a game farm in the Northern Province lowveldt near Hoedspruit.

Many South African's are very heavy duty Christian, especially Afrikaners; it's a real issue here. In many ways SA Christianity reminds me of Northern Ireland Protestantism, the same same staunch, bigoted mind set.

People are often shocked to the core when one declares one's complete lack of belief. Something I don't go out my way to do, unless I'm put upon by religious presumption; sadly all too common here.

I'd like to see Richard Dawkins come out here. and perhaps give a lecture at the 'Cradle of Humanity' world heritage site at Sterkfonein, famous for discovery of early hominids. A fantastic facility and a more than fitting venue http://www.maropeng.co.za/.

55. What's Good About Religion?

Comment #82512 by Nick Good on October 26, 2007 at 2:08 pm

He's a terribly nice chap, he has an agreeable way with him. That said, I'd parse a few points with the fellow. Mind you, nothing to get worked up about, nothing to get in the way of politeness and civility; and, perhaps, more importantly, the sociable and very civilised imbibing of a decent Shiraz, from the fairest Cape!

Nick - South Africa

56. Atheists don't believe in anything

Comment #82434 by Nick Good on October 26, 2007 at 10:24 am

I'm an atheist; and I rather strongly believe, that the kinetic energy of a body, is half it's mass, multiplied by the square of its velocity. I also love a few people in this world, and believe that a few of them, love me. I also happen to believe, that US policy in Iraq; is, broadly correct. Three facets of 'belief'.

One may or may not share some of these beliefs, this is not to equivocate on the meaning of "believe"... I might add, unlike the conflation of the meaning of 'faith' - in it's religious sense of 'belief without evidence' with 'faith' that the sun will come up in the morning. Something over which, all too many theists, seem willfully, to do.

57. Atheists don't believe in anything

Comment #82423 by Nick Good on October 26, 2007 at 9:59 am

If you don't believe in God, you must not believe in anything.

It's a non sequitur.

Not only does the second statement not follow from the first; it's patently untrue! You can be a communist atheist (Mao, Marx etcetera), a monetarist atheist (Alan Greenspan), a humanist atheist (where to start), a Darwinist atheist (the good professor). You can even be a Buddhist Atheist . Indeed I suspect Sam Harris is, at least in the sense that he very clearly follows much of 'Buddha Dhamma' - Buddhist teaching. I also very strongly suspect, from what he's written and said, as well as his general demenour and deportment, that he has practiced a good deal of Vipassana meditation.

All being an atheist tells you about someone - in the absence of any other information - is that they lack belief in deities; nothing more.

The sub text if of course, that theism provides some kind 'moral compass', one unavailable to atheists, some 'invisible check' on our baser motivations, one that serves to make theists better people.

If this were so, you would expect this to be correlated with general behavior. You would expect to see atheists over represented amongst criminals, child molesters, train spotters and bed wetters. You might expect to see the standard of public and private morality lower in countries with a higher incidence of atheism.

Is this what we see?

58. God's honest truth?

Comment #79778 by Nick Good on October 18, 2007 at 1:50 pm

I understand that Sweden banned the genital mutilation of male infants too.

59. Help Counter the New Atheist Crusade to 'Evangelize' America!

Comment #79438 by Nick Good on October 17, 2007 at 8:56 am

Jesus said, "But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were thrown into the sea" (Mark 9:42 NKJV).

So much for gentle Jesus meek and mild! The fellow punts this hateful bilge, like these are words of wisdom.

60. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #79284 by Nick Good on October 16, 2007 at 5:37 pm

Alistaire Mc Grath's clearly a terribly nice and decent fellow. But Christopher Hitchens didn't let that waiver him, nor was he lulled by Mc Grath's soporific, Anglican vicar, cucumber sandwiches and tea on the lawn, approach.

The Hitch shone a rather bright light onto those bland platitudes.

61. Richard Dawkins receives the Deschner Prize

Comment #79059 by Nick Good on October 16, 2007 at 2:29 am

Michael:

Now you are misrepresenting me! I didn't say that. Mine was the post before.

Fair cop! My mistake. Please accept my unqualified apology.

I should have cited Bonzai.

62. Richard Dawkins receives the Deschner Prize

Comment #79055 by Nick Good on October 16, 2007 at 2:05 am

Brian: Are you a South African, or an American?

Neither! I was born in Culcutta of English expat parents, lived in India Sri Lanka and Singapore for first 15 yrs, then many years in the UK, including over 2 in Ulster, been in SA 14 yrs. So I guess I'm a bit of a colonial wallah...but then so is Richard, who spent his tender years in Kenya.

63. Richard Dawkins receives the Deschner Prize

Comment #79049 by Nick Good on October 16, 2007 at 1:48 am

mmurray: "I am afraid you misrepresented his views through selective citations."

note added later - I originally incorrectly cited mmurray (Micheal)- the quote above was from Bonzai - much sorryness!

Not so, Francis - whose blog I sometimes comment on - was critical of Gore's inaccuracies, exaggeration and technique. Indeed, on the very thread in question Francis follows up with this...

The film is on a par with Michael Moore's efforts, that's how bad it is.

Francis, a PHD in physics, is not given to hyperbole. I quoted him precisely because I happen to know he is critical of Lomborg's position. If you think I misrepresented Francis by selective quotation, you can always ask him (link added later).

The point is that that Gore is not serving his alleged cause, he's muddying the water.

My point in raising this was that Professor Dawkins did not add to his credibility as a serious scientist by giving Gore's Nobel 'Peace' prize - a 'rubber stamp'.

Firstly, the Nobel 'Peace' prize is... in its own terms...of questionable merit. Secondly, using bad arguments to advance a scientific case and a political agenda is wrong....period.

Bad arguments are bad arguments; irrespective of the merit of the cause that they advocate.

64. Richard Dawkins receives the Deschner Prize

Comment #78932 by Nick Good on October 15, 2007 at 12:58 pm

steve99: "Teach the controversy', say the Intelligent Designers. 'Lets have a debate' say the global warming deniers."

Tu quoque!

Well this is a good example; the handle 'global warming deniers' is itself highly misleading and simplistic, fairly characterising very few. The use of the term 'deniers' is, to my mind, a rather intellectually dishonest trick to try to demonise by association, those that don't buy the full monty Al Gore line by invoking tacitly... the likes of Armedinajad and Irving.....to try to shut down the debate.

To try to assert the degree of scientific consensus and certainty that there is in Darwinian evolution, with it's layers upon layers of mutually reinforcing, interlocking and overlapping evidence, onto the vagaries of climate science, it's assumption leaden projections and computer models and Al Gore's position and policy recommendations, to my mind is more than a stretch, it has more in common with 'faith' and 'dogma'.

65. Richard Dawkins receives the Deschner Prize

Comment #78909 by Nick Good on October 15, 2007 at 10:52 am

steveroot: "especially when the per-capita "footprint" in the U.S. is so much larger than most of the rest of the world?"

Facts are a bugger aren't they. Australia and Luxembourg have bigger "Per-capita", carbon footprints than the US, as do a few others. Now Aus is still diddly squat in the greater scheme of things, because there are only 20 million of them, verses 300 million Yanks. But then that wasn't the point you were making.

Cutting CO2 emissions is, I posit, a good idea, for all sorts of reasons. I've not argued that it isn't, I know very few that do make this argument, including the often misrepresented Lomborg. I'm rather less convinced that the draconian measures advocated by some doom merchants, are the best approach. I don't think telling porkies helps, and I don't think arguing that telling porkies is a good thing and doesn't matter, if it serves a greater cause...if it fits the PC meta narrative - as some seem to - really helps.

66. Richard Dawkins receives the Deschner Prize

Comment #78902 by Nick Good on October 15, 2007 at 10:24 am

Brian: I've been enthusiastic, ambivalent and violently opposed to Ethanol from food. Now I'm warming to it again:-) Why? Because the evidence is all over the place, and there is no clear consensus. I may be a flip flopper, but I have reasons:-)

Well I've been pro, anti and then pro nuclear power. But then new nuclear power technology is much safer than hitherto. I changed my mind on the Euro too, currently anti for Blighty. Such is life's rich tapestry!

67. Richard Dawkins receives the Deschner Prize

Comment #78899 by Nick Good on October 15, 2007 at 10:14 am

Steve99: Ah... so now you change your tune. Having conceded the scientific points, you move onto politics...

No I didn't concede the scientific point. I was showing that you applied the genetic argument inconsistently - and you agreed that you do.

If someone is incredible as a non expert; they are incredible, whether they agree with you or not.

Gore makes a number of claims in AIT that are clearly at odds with anything approaching scientific consensus; this is exacerbated massively by the use of technique and unstated - but all too obvious - associations...the Micheal Moore method if you will.

Brian I really don't go with the Gore is correct on the essence, we can ignore the details line.... That just doesn't work for me. The devil IS in the detial. The correct policy approach is by no means clear, there certainly is no consensus on this.

I think the debate is important; too many people are trying to shut it down.

68. Richard Dawkins receives the Deschner Prize

Comment #78894 by Nick Good on October 15, 2007 at 9:48 am

Brian: An Inconvenient Truth was not a scientific paper, it was a movie popularising complex science.

I think it went a little further than just "popularising". It was - with the subtlety of a drunk squadie trying to get laid - pushing a very obvious political agenda; and the 'brand' Gore.

I wonder if he will put in a late bid for the Democratic nomination.

69. Richard Dawkins receives the Deschner Prize

Comment #78891 by Nick Good on October 15, 2007 at 9:21 am

Brian wrote: The alternative view, that nothing is happening, or that something is happening but it's nothing to do with us,

You've mis represented the "alternative view" of many, if not most. Many object to Gore's - and many environmental nay sayers - exaggeration, hyperbole and all too common use of what should be easily avoidable inaccuracies. They also differ on how the issue should be addressed in terms of policy, priorities and the allocation of resources.

Here's one example of a Physics PHD blogger, Francis Sedgemore...

Gore's film may contain a number of scientific errors and exaggerations, but the man is passionate about the environment, and so that makes it all right, say many environmentalists. Well, no it isn't, actually. This is not a rhetorical debate about ultimately inconsequential political matters. To treat it as such is an insult to the intelligence of the general public, and the legion of scientists working on climate change and its consequences.

source - http://skysong.eu/2007/10/global-warming-the-nobel-peace-prize-and-the-corruption-of-scientific-and-political-debate/

Francis (an atheist) rather echoes my point that Dawkins as a scientist is ill advised to in effect 'rubber stamp' sloppy approaches to scientific matters of great import; this putting aside the rather dodgy - dare I say Templetonesque - track record of the Nobel 'Peace' prize.

He's going to antagonise the more intelligent, discerning folks that listen carefully, rather than the usual nodding donkey 'choir'. Folks that look for congruence...for rigor, across different fields and issues, as a marker for intellectual honesty.

Another example, showing that critique of the like's of Gore is more measured than often characteristed. Here's Bjorn Lomborg (if it matters - an atheist) in the pre amble to his new Book - Cool it...

That humanity has caused a substantial rise in atmospheric carbon-dioxide levels over the past centuries, thereby contributing to global warming, is beyond debate. What is debatable, however, is whether hysteria and headlong spending on extravagant CO2-cutting programs at an unprecedented price is the only possible response. Such a course is especially debatable in a world where billions of people live in poverty, where millions die of curable diseases, and where these lives could be saved, societies strengthened, and environments improved at a fraction of the cost.

Global warming is a complex subject. No one–not Al Gore, not the world's leading scientists, and most of all not myself–claims to have all the knowledge and all the solutions. But we have to act on the best available data from both the natural and the social sciences. The title of this book has two meanings: the first and obvious one is that we have to set our minds and resources toward the most effective way to tackle long-term global warming. But the second refers to the current nature of the debate. At present, anyone who does not support the most radical solutions to global warming is deemed an outcast and is called irresponsible and is seen as possibly an evil puppet of the oil lobby. It is my contention that this is not the best way to frame a debate on so crucial an issue. I believe most participants in the debate have good and honorable intentions–we all want to work toward a better world. But to do so, we need to cool the rhetoric, allowing us to have a measured discussion about the best ways forward. Being smart about our future is the reason we have done so well in the past. We should not abandon our smarts now.

70. Richard Dawkins receives the Deschner Prize

Comment #78882 by Nick Good on October 15, 2007 at 8:46 am

Steve 99 No, as Al Gore states views which are, to a large degree, mainstream on the subject. It is not his views he presents. He is not cherry-picking experts who agree with what he wants to believe.

So on scientific matters of import, your view is that arguments made by non specialist non experts are to be disregarded, unless they concur with what you believe to be the consensus.

I can assure you that there is nothing approaching a "consensus" amongst specialists on a goodly number of claims made in Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' film. Gore does not limit his brief to global warming and it's causes and effects.

Gore advocates specific policy proposals to address anthropomorphic global warming. I can assure you that there is zip scientific consensus about what policy to follow vis a vis climate change, how to prioritize, allocate resources and address conflicting imperatives and interests.

Overlay on this the Michael Mooresque innuendo, the technique, the overlays, the juxtaposition and it is clear that AIT is a partial, political polemic.

Anyway here's the judgment handed down by a British court on the Challenge bought by a parent in a British school where the film was distributed to be shown in state schools. The father objected to AIT's tendentious approach, I thought it very measured...
http://downloads.heartland.org/22161.pdf

I think rather too many, with political axes to grind are, rather too conveniently, claiming that such scientific consensus as exists in this space; covers a rather bigger patch than it does.

Back to the US president. Another thing I've noticed with the Professor; he refers to the US administration rather as if Bush is a dictator, Bush this ...Bush that....Now the president is obviously highly influential, but the US government doesn't quite work that way. As it happens, amongst presidents, Bush in particular is big into consulting advisers and delegation, one might not like what comes out of it, but that's another matter.

71. Richard Dawkins receives the Deschner Prize

Comment #78858 by Nick Good on October 15, 2007 at 5:40 am

Brian: I'd like (as usual) to put the boot in here as well. Anyone disputing climate change, who doesn't have a Phd in climatology and several well received peer reviewed studies on the subject is in exactly the same position as a fundamentalist christian imagining they have anything relevant to say on the subject of evolution.

Presumably that also includes non climatologist Al Gore? Assuming so, presumably you'd agree with my point that the award made to Gore was....ummm ignoble... and the good Professor Dawkins was ill advised to mention it?

72. Richard Dawkins receives the Deschner Prize

Comment #78856 by Nick Good on October 15, 2007 at 5:18 am

Brian: Nick .... have you considered that is not Dawkins who is the "crazy lefty", but you who are the "crazy righty"?

Not really because as it happens, my political views are generally centrist on the economic laissez faire-command economy axis, and distinctly liberal, on the authoritarian-classically liberal (in the UK sense) axis.
See how you score on the World's Shortest Political Quiz http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

A longer version
http://politicalbrew.com/politest.cgi

It is hard to argue with the position that Bush has been bad for science, the secular world view and unbelievers generally

Bait and switch... I didn't argue that! I argued that it was childish to make the argument about GWB's title that Dawkins did, he's elswere come up with the lefty 'Bush stole the presidency' shtick, this comment, at least to me, was redolent of that. If Dawkins wanted to critique the Bush Admiministration's record on science, Dawkins is articulate enough to do that. And guess what, I'd have agreed - with a couple of exceptions where I thought the Bush administration correct on scientific calls, specifically not signing Kyoto!

Still I'm a "crazy lefty" too, but Atheists do seem to lean that way.

I'd grant that, at least anecdotally, lefties seem to be over represented amongst atheist that are identifiable as such on blogs and in the media. That said, they by no means hold a monopoly, not even close. Leftism by no means leads to atheism any more than visa versa.

So I'm not sure I'd make a general rule of that. Maybe centrist and rightist atheists are less inclined to cluster in these areas and are to be found elsewhere. It's not very difficult to come up with a very long list of rather un-lefty atheists in other spheres. For starters Republican Regan appointed Alan Greenspan, Karl Rove, Bill Gates, Richard Branson and the far right authoritarian Chinese politburo.

I think Professor Dawkins has been reading too much Guardian and Independent and lurking around lefty blogs a little too much for his own good. He does seem to have learnt a goodly few of the hard left's favorite mantras.

Nick - Midrand, South Africa

73. Richard Dawkins receives the Deschner Prize

Comment #78849 by Nick Good on October 15, 2007 at 4:35 am

Eamonn Shute: I don't think the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change could be described as a person! And I don't see how Al Gores work, however praiseworthy it may be, meets the brief. It seems to me that the Nobel Committee have moved the goalposts quite a bit!

Well Al Gore is hardly setting a precedent for the award of the Nobel 'peace' prize rather stretching its founder's brief. Previous awards have gone to 'Mother Teresa', Yasser Arafat and Henry Kissinger. The committee even shortlisted Adolf Hitler...as late as 1938!

I do wish Professor Dawkins would be less crazy lefty - not being able to refer to the US President as such, because he - Dawkins - doesn't care for GWB's politics. How infantile. I guess it's good for cheap laughs though.

74. Richard Dawkins receives the Deschner Prize

Comment #78839 by Nick Good on October 15, 2007 at 3:55 am

I thought it ill advised of Dawkins to describe as 'wonderful news' Al Gore's Nobel 'Peace' prize award, during his acceptance speech.

Richard Dawkins is a scientist, who I'd expect to deal in evidence and facts; to that end endorsing, without qualification hyperbole disseminating hypocrites - Al Gore on global warming - hardly seems the thing. I'm sure I'm not alone in spotting the parallel with Ted Haggard on 'Christian mores' and Haggard's personal life with Al Gore on 'CO2 greenhouse gas emissions' and Gore's personal Carbon Footprint.

Sticking to facts and measured tones I generally find way more persuasive, than all the tosh in 'Inconvenient Truth'.

Richard seems to be developing something of a penchant for hyperbole.

75. Fox News Attacks 'Godless' Free Thought Radio

Comment #78309 by Nick Good on October 12, 2007 at 12:00 pm

Bias but harmless enough, certainly no more bias than much on the Beeb or the Guardian.

76. Ayaan Hirsi Ali: abandoned to fanatics

Comment #77665 by Nick Good on October 10, 2007 at 4:02 am

American Enterprise Institute includes such people as Paul Wolfowitz (visiting scholar)

So a free enterprise, economic forum, have the former head of the World Bank on board...shock horror!

Some of us think that reflects well on the AEI, some of us, heaven forbid, think rather well of Paul Wolfowitz...Golly gosh, there are people who are atheists who have differing views on economics and politics... not all atheists are Lefties....surprise, surprise!

If you don't like Hirsi Ali's politics that's fine. She is however a self declared atheist, an apostate and outspoken critique of Islam. She is at very real risk of attack from Koranic literalist Muslims. She should be protected; the Dutch government's stance on this has been nothing less than disgraceful.

All power to the AEI for sponsoring Hirsi Ali and providing her with a platform.

77. If Muslim doctors are intolerant, let them go

Comment #77658 by Nick Good on October 10, 2007 at 3:00 am

One also should be mindful that 5 qualified doctors were in the terrorist ring round up recently in Britain. This is the ring that perpetrated failed attacks on London nightclubs - no doubt targeting British 'dancing slags'. They were involved in the widely publicised failed Jeep car bomb attack on Glasgow airport - one of those in the vehicle, detained at the scene, was a qualified medical doctor, practicing in the UK.

The deputy leader of Al Qaeda, Ayman al-Zawahri, is a medical doctor.

The list of Islamo-fascist MDs goes on

Dr. Mahmoud Al-Zahar--HAMAS co-founder, Dr. Fathi Abd Al-Aziz Shiqaqi founder of Islamic Jihad and active in Fatah, Dr. Bashar Al Assad President of Terrorist sponsoring state Syria, Dr. Wameeth Fadhli--A US MD that went on a shooting spree of infidels in Texas

The list of Islamo nutter MDs goes on and on, this is but a short list....it runs to pages.

Put it this way, as an infidel in a position to choose being treated by either of 2 Indian doctors, one called Patel and one called Khan, all other things being equal, I'd pick doctor Patel; it's a Hindu name. Khan, is a Muslim name.

It's by no means a perfect methodology, indeed it's a highly imperfect, even dodgy proxy indicator, but it would effectively control for the risk of being treated by someone whose religion's core tenets teaches them to despise the 'kuffar'. This is sad.

78. If Muslim doctors are intolerant, let them go

Comment #77633 by Nick Good on October 10, 2007 at 12:30 am

I'm against those war-mongering fools who imagine that Islamo-fascism pervades every corner of the Muslim consciousness.

Not "every corner", but "Islamo-fasicm" is endemic in the British Muslim population. Just for starters 40% of British Muslims are prepared to admit to a polster that they want Sharia Law in the UK.

79. Response to My Fellow 'Atheists'

Comment #77146 by Nick Good on October 8, 2007 at 3:17 pm

I had to go to casualty on Saturday - I heroically stubbed my little toe and wasn't sure if I'd busted it.

I had to fill in some forms - I'm in South Africa, between Pretoria and Jo'burg. One of the questions was ...Religion?

I didn't write 'atheist', I put 'none'; that was the honest answer, the question was not what I didn't believe in! And I am not of the school that posits atheism as a religion! Anyway, it was no big deal.

When I was commissioned into HM forces back in 1980, same thing. I put 'None' on the religion question on the huge form, I received a phone call from some clerk saying that 'none' was not on the list of recognised religions....I didn't argue, I changed it to 'agnostic', a bit of a cop out I confess. Still caused me shiite though!

80. Response to My Fellow 'Atheists'

Comment #77143 by Nick Good on October 8, 2007 at 2:59 pm

sbe wrote: Unlike being gay or black, atheism is a choice

I agreed pretty much with the rest of your post; but not this specific point. Some of us can't really 'choose' to believe in any god, any more than we can 'choose' to believe in Zeus or Santa.

We just didn't get there by 'choice'. I became a religious sceptic at about 13 because I couldn't get anyone to point out satisfactorily to my young mind, despite my good-faith questions, a satisfactory reason why 'faith', in the religious sense, was a good thing. I became hung-up on the faith verses evidence dichotomy, funnily enough, because it was quite plain to me that 'faith' contradicted directly what I was being taught in science classes about the scientific method for parsing reality and approaching truth.

My atheism flowed from that fault line; Christianity started seeming more and more trite. This wasn't a conscious choice, and I couldn't ignore it. At 14 I dropped out of confirmation classes in my minor, English Anglican boarding school in Sussex, because I thought it dishonest to go through with confirmation when I didn't believe in any god.

81. Response to My Fellow 'Atheists'

Comment #77119 by Nick Good on October 8, 2007 at 1:48 pm

I agree with Sam on this one.

But, that said, I also think there needs to be out there, overt atheists, of which Sam of course, is one. I don't think this is a case of either-or, it's both.

It also seems as if PZ Myers, in his open letter to Sam, rather misrepresented Sam's position. Which I thought a pity, and rather surprising. But this is not damaging because PZ isn't particularly well known outside of the atheist 'echo chamber'.

Rather less serious to the reputation of atheists as balanced, measured and reasonable, than Richard's recent US-Zionist conspiracy theory shtick; one that's raised a goodly few eyebrows....

http://oliverkamm.typepad.com/blog/2007/10/dawkins-secular.html

As for 'spirituality' I don't think the word really means anything. It's rather like the word 'executive'...a padding word devoid of content - a generic filler.

Rather say what you mean ...Contemplative - yes, reflective - yup, empathetic - indeed, compassionate - for sure, filled with wonder and awe - why not....but spiritual....it's tosh.

82. Call for major science campaign

Comment #77097 by Nick Good on October 8, 2007 at 12:54 pm

This is laudable.

I'm not sure for the reason for the tail off in science graduates in Blighty. Could it simply be market forces pushing bright kids to study business studies, IT and accountancy, over science, maths and engineering?

I suspect that a goodly number of erstwhile science students, have been sucked into IT, I was.

What are your career prospects and how wide are your options with a business studies degree verses a physics degree? The answer to this may give us a clue.

It could also be a cultural thing - the Big Brother generation. Or even the global demand for good scientists being amply filled from India and South East Asia.

The burgeoning small business sector may be a factor too. Bright people are far more likely than a generation ago to be driven to setting up their own business rather than choose a career stalking the corridors in a white coat, of some dusty educational establishment, public sector organisation, parastatal or corporatation.

I suspect, it's a combination of these factors.

I'd also like to see critical thinking set into the core curriculum - and regarded as importantly as are numeracy and literacy.

83. We Few, We Happy Few, We Band of Brothers

Comment #76877 by Nick Good on October 7, 2007 at 2:37 pm

Veronique wrote: They, [Bush Cheney] both of them, are responsible more than anyone else for the massive rise in suicide terrorism that is engulfing the Middle East.

Really, "more than anyone else"... more responsible than those actually perpetrating the suicide terrorism? The vast overwhelmingly bulk of which is directed against fellow Muslims...all be it 'Kuffar' in the terrorist's eyes, simply because the targets of their terrorism come from another sect (most suicide terrorism is Sunni on Shia, with the exception that very few Kurds, most of whom are Sunni, are involved in suicide terrorism. There is also a hard core of Sufi suicide terrorists - eg the Beslan atrocity in Russia, was committed by Sufis, as was the Moscow theater attack).

Bush and Cheney more culpable than those training said terrorists, supplying them with explosives, giving them specific targets? Bush and Cheney more culpable than those individuals, organisations and states mindfully providing the direct financing and logistics support of suicide terrorism? Bush and Cheney more responsible than those giving the terrorists the motivation to carry out such attrocities...the promise of money for their families, the Mullas with their Koranic invocations... 72 virgins, "boys, pretty as pearls", promise of heavenly reward for their immediate kin?

Do you honestly think Bush and Cheney are more culpable than this lot....really....honestly? Because that's what you, and all too many others, are EXPLICITLY asserting.

Candidly, to me, this comes over as some kind of lefty racism...the racism, all too common on the hard left, that of low expectation. 'They can't help it', 'they don't know any better'...'they can't help themselves'. The terribly condescending - 'Muslims as puppies crapping on the carpet' school of discourse.

I don't buy it. I hereby charge you with rampant Bush Derangement Syndrome!

84. Be Good Now, Or Else

Comment #76867 by Nick Good on October 7, 2007 at 2:01 pm

Northern Bright wrote: (Actually, on reflection, your average Daily Mail reader would probably approve of re-programming criminals' minds. As long as you could still hang' em and flog 'em too, of course.)

Personally; I am not entirely convinced that the average Daily Mail reader, whatever that construes, is any more morally compromised than the average BBC Question Time watcher or Guardian reader. But I'm open to persuasion, in either direction.

And please; let's hope no logically challenged folks misconstrue this as any kind of endorsement of the Daily Mail!

85. Be Good Now, Or Else

Comment #76852 by Nick Good on October 7, 2007 at 1:30 pm

The brain regions showed less activity when a computer was meting out the punishment, indicating the prospect of disappointing or angering the other person may be more important than the fear of the punishment itself in activating these areas.

I think it depends how you're 'wired' and how your socialised. Certainly I can assert that this would hold true with me.

Personally, I play on my personal intuitive knowledge of this in how I bring up my 10 year old son, who thinks very similarly to me.

I reason with him about cause and effect all the time. I 'exploit' his innate capacity for reason, empathy and compassion and his personal judgment about what is seemly and wholesome.... his internal moral compass if you will. I use this far more than stick and carrot. Though I do use reward....but again, at a level removed. I try not to punt it as a carrot. He's getting a nice new mountain bike for Christmas, and he has done well in his school exams. I pointedly did not explicitly link the two.

I'm trying to bring up a rounded human being; not one of Pavlov's dogs!

86. We Few, We Happy Few, We Band of Brothers

Comment #76521 by Nick Good on October 6, 2007 at 4:00 am

Scooter wrote And as a matter of record, Bush and Cheney both spoke about having to deal with Iraq and Saddam during their 2000 campaign.

Indeed regime change in Iraq became US policy in 1998, 2 years before Clinton left office, following a bipartisan congressional vote. The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338)

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c105:H.R.4655.ENR:

It's worth printing it off and comparing it to the bipartisan congressional vote taken 4 years later under Bush-2 -
Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243)
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ243.107

Here's a You Tube clip of Al Gore in 1992, doing quite a convincing Hitchens impersonation, definitely worth watching for shits and giggles..it's hilarious!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDitSbkQKIs

87. We Few, We Happy Few, We Band of Brothers

Comment #76498 by Nick Good on October 6, 2007 at 2:15 am

82abhilash: But Andy's ideas have several shortcomings

Indeed, I think, as has been pointed out, Andy Thomson ignores female propensity to participate in and support violence, and the culture in which it is promulgated. To wit, the celebrating mothers of suicide murderers, ululating Palestinian women on the streets post 9/11, the Jerry Springer show, women handing out white feathers to men not in uniform in WW1, and so on.

Andy Thomson to my mind also touched rather too lightly, on sexual selection. A process in which females have significant stake throughout the animal kingdom. Over time, put crudely, females get to exert strong selection pressure, by having a strong say in who gets to shag them!

Richard Dawkins covers this thoroughly in some of his books.

88. We Few, We Happy Few, We Band of Brothers

Comment #76493 by Nick Good on October 6, 2007 at 2:02 am

briancoughlanworldcitizen wrote:As regards those in Gitmo. We cannot meaningfully comment on their guilt or innocence, because they have never been tried. The comment the 500 guys in Gitmo are there because they are Jihadi's, not Jihadis because they are there. cannot, in absence of transparent legal procedures, reasonably be substantiated.

Well, you're premise here, is seeing the criminal law model, as the appropriate 'tool' in this scenario. You clearly, for some reason, see as inappropriate, the 'tool' the US is employing. This is a variation of the Prisoner Of War model; commensurate with the fact that these Jihadis don't fit into the category of legal combatants in terms of the Geneva conventions, to which the US is party.

I don't have much interest in getting into that debate here.

What I will say is that the details of the US military tribunals that assessed these men individually, are in the public domain, as are details of a goodly few of the individuals held.

So is the fact that Qtub was an American hating, Kuffur hating Islamo-nutter, waay before he was send down in Egypt.

I think as strong an argument can be made that he wouldn't have turned nasty, if only Americans didn't mow their lawns, something he seemed rather hung up on.

Even the most cursory glance at recent British/Irish history shows how morally bankrupt this kind of stategy is.
I served for a couple of years in the British military in Northern Ireland in the early 80s, around the time of the IRA prison 'diet'. Internment happened for a short while in the early 70s. I just don't see the parallel of Gitmo with Internment in Northern Ireland. And anyway, whatever failings there were in the British policy, in their strategy and tactics in prosecuting CRO - Counter Revolutionary Operations, in Northern Ireland, and there were plenty; the British very clearly won that one. Though it took about 30 years! Even the Irish Republic's constitutional claim on the six British counties in the North, has been dropped.

The Malayan emergency - the British led fight against the MPABA (Malayan Peoples Anti British Army), Communist, mainly Chinese, guerillas, took a similar amount of time. Officially from 1948 to the year after independence - 1960, but it was still going on until the early 70s, and this was an almost text book perfect campaign by the Brits. These Counter Insurgency conflicts do take a long time.

I suspect the one against Islamo-fascism, will take considerably longer, because it's global and because it involves the fight for the minds of the Worlds Muslims, against the very core tenets of their religion, which has Jihad as the default setting.

Anyway, I generally am sceptical of arguments, that the 'root cause' of terrorism and extremism, is resisting it, is fighting against it. These arguments are really surprisingly common. Daniel Dennett's little speech on Gitmo - and I noticed it was a little speech, not a question - was, to my mind, just a variation of this oft chanted mantra.

89. Teachers 'fear evolution lessons'

Comment #76475 by Nick Good on October 6, 2007 at 1:06 am

There are 150 state funded Islamic schools, in the 'pipeline', in the UK.

90. We Few, We Happy Few, We Band of Brothers

Comment #76170 by Nick Good on October 5, 2007 at 12:50 am

Good lecture, with some interesting observations.

That said, I thought Dan Dennett's point was rather silly.

Dennett argued that the the Muslim brotherhood's leader - Saheed Qtub, was 'programmed'... was radicalised in an Egyptian jail. Dennett then went on to say that this is what the US is doing to the Jihadi prisoners in Guantanamo Bay.

I think he - Dennett - has it the wrong way around. Putting aside the illegal combatants, POW, 'due process' arguments. The 500 guys in Gitmo are there because they are Jihadi's, not Jihadis because they are there.

Dennett notably does not come up with other alternatives suggestions as to what to do with them.

91. Atheists arise: Dawkins spreads the A-word among America's unbelievers

Comment #75429 by Nick Good on October 2, 2007 at 4:03 pm

Silent Mike wrote: I don't think there are as many handgun owners here as in the US (No. Not even relatively).

Florida alone has issued more than 1.2 million concealed carry permits in the last decade.

http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_monthly.html

92. Atheists arise: Dawkins spreads the A-word among America's unbelievers

Comment #75424 by Nick Good on October 2, 2007 at 3:36 pm

Steven Mading wrote:You claimed to support the US foreign policy. That indicates pretty strongly you don't think there's any unfair bias toward Israel

No, that's a non sequitur. For starters it does not follow that stating that there is a bias towards Israel is acknowledgment that such bias is necessarily and in each instance "unfair", that's a presumption on your part.

By way of example, in most Western legal systems there is an default assumption of innocence, until the 'burden of proof' is bought to bear to prove guilt 'beyond reasonable doubt'. To note this is not to acknowledge that such presumption of innocence bias is "unfair".

Another example, the UK has a systemic bias in favour of trade with other EC states over non EC countries. Take South African farm produce; produced with zero farm subsidies. It competes in the UK market against produce from other EC countries, produced with farm subsidies from European taxpayers. You cannot derive from this statement alone, what my postion is on free trade, subsidies, import tariffs etcetera.

Also, if you go back and check this thread, I carefully did not write a 'blank cheque' in support of every aspect and nuance of US foreign policy, in every global theater, and that would include US policies in Western Asia and North Africa. That would be silly, and I pointedly did not make that generalisation, indeed I clearly qualified my support for US foreign policy....go check I wrote (bold added):

Believe it or not, there are quite a few atheists sympathetic to your points about the malign effects of religion, who agree with the broad thrust of US foreign policy.

93. Atheists arise: Dawkins spreads the A-word among America's unbelievers

Comment #75370 by Nick Good on October 2, 2007 at 12:08 pm

Steven Mading wrote:

Unlike Nick, I agree with the evidence and I do think the US policy is biased toward Israel

If you check back carefully in this thread and read what was written, I never asserted, nor have I implied, that it wasn't.

That is to say I never have asserted or implied that US policy is NOT biased in favour of Israel! Indeed I specifically qualified that very point.

I only asserted that it is absurd to posit - as Richard, assuming he was quoted by the Grauniad correctly, did - that the Jewish lobby monopolises US foreign policy.

94. Atheists arise: Dawkins spreads the A-word among America's unbelievers

Comment #75335 by Nick Good on October 2, 2007 at 11:17 am

Elli, I tend to agree on your "better judgement" assesment. I think I would rather be subject to Israeli 'due process' or be a POW held there, than in ANY country in the region, and most countries in the World. Imperfect as Israel is, it's the only 'kosher' liberal democracy in North Africa and Western Asia.

you wrote:

the NRA is a wonderful example of disproportionate influence to the detriment of society

The NRA is indeed a good example of an effective lobby group; possibly a better 'model' for Richard to employ than "Jews". Golly gosh, there is even a constitutional parallel!

As it happens, the NRA did for the Democrats in 2000 after the Democrats campaign on an anti-gun ticket. A gentle 'nudge', by way of an e-mail or newsletter - pushed many rather pissed-off gun owning natural Dems over to the GOP. The Democrats have, quite noticeably since then, backed off, big-time from their anti civilian gun ownership position. It just isn't a vote winner in the US. Memories of Redcoats coming for their guns, run very long and very deep.

Whether the NRA acts to the detriment of American society, is a positive influence or is essentially a neutral influence special pleading lobby group - is debatable. And it's a separate debate tangential to the essence of this thread. What I can say is that there are now 39 States in America that have 'Shall Issue' concealed carry laws. In essence, if you are not a convicted felon, and meet certain basic criteria, usually training related; the state MUST issue you with a concealed handgun carry permit, should you apply. The burden is NOT on you, to prove need. Florida was one of the first states to try this and it was, it seems, contrary to many doom sayers, a great success. There has been an avalanche of states following the Florida lead.

Dramatically more handguns are thus being carried by citizens on a daily basis in America now than at any time in US history. Yet gun crime is falling, and quite significantly. Now that of itself is not conclusive evidence for the good social effect of such laws - because as critical thinking 101 teaches us, where there is correlation it is not necessarily as a result of causation effect. But there is clearly more to the gun issue than the knee jerk 'guns are bad' mantra of most Brits completely ignorant on the matter and many - in the US sense - Liberals. Oh, the same is true in the UK, it's an almost perfect inverse correlation over the last century between the decline in civilian gun ownership, following the introduction of increasingly draconian legislation, and the increase in armed crime. At the very least this tells us that there are other factors at play with more influence than the incidence of civilian firearm ownership.

Indeed, armed crime has leapt up hugely in the last decade. Funnily enough, after the handgun confiscation legislation was rushed in - contrary to the finding of the government appointed Lord Cullen inquiry - after the Dunblane atrocity.

On the subject of Jews, Israel is positively replete with civilian held firearms and has assault rifles in the home aplenty; many are part time soldiers. Check their murder rate - it's notably low.

95. Atheists arise: Dawkins spreads the A-word among America's unbelievers

Comment #75210 by Nick Good on October 2, 2007 at 3:53 am

BT, Possibly because Richard has revealed his political hand rather clearly. He can, in his weaker, more emotional moments, be rather un-measured and come over like something posted on Moveon.org, the Daily Kos, or the output of some of the other, zanier parts of the Left on either side of the 'pond'.

Exhibit 1 - his Operation Clark County...'contribution' (scroll down, 3rd letter).

96. Atheists arise: Dawkins spreads the A-word among America's unbelievers

Comment #75195 by Nick Good on October 2, 2007 at 2:48 am

I'm not sure that the Jews have been any more successful in monopolising America's foreign policy direction than the Saudi lobby, the South Korean lobby, the Kuwaiti lobby, the Egyptian lobby or indeed the Taiwanese lobby. The situation in Israel - formerly a chunk of Trans Jordan, and before that a chunk of the Ottoman Caliphate, is different only because of the visceral Koranic directed Jew hatred of all too many Muslims.

There are 15 million Jews in the entire global diaspora, perhaps 6-7 million living in Israel, there are more Sikhs than Jews.

Is anyone seriously arguing that Israel is a state worthy of pariah status more than Libya, Egypt...hell most of the Middle East, Darfur....hell most of Africa, China, Indonesia, Iran, Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka, Russia, North Korea, Burma, Malaysia, and even France?

How else to explain the obsession of huge chunks of the 300 million Arabs and wider 1.2 Billion Islamic Ummah with a tiny, oil and resource free strip of arid land the size of Wales in Western Asia, whilst pointedly ignoring the plight of the Kurds, a people straddling 5 nations, the genocide in Darfur, wholesale forced relocations of peoples in Indonesia and Tibet, and much else besides?

Richard has to my mind in this instance pulled out a line that could have come straight from one of Bin Laden's rants, or indeed pretty much any frothing Islamic cleric. The fact that this script is also used by much of the political left (but by no means all) on both sides of the Atlantic, does not make it wholesome fare.

To my mind it's dodgy and at best ill judged on Richard's part.

I pretty much agree with his stance on religion, and I thought he was well out of order here.

97. Atheists arise: Dawkins spreads the A-word among America's unbelievers

Comment #75156 by Nick Good on October 2, 2007 at 12:07 am

You must be living under a rock if you think the Israeli lobby does not have an unreasonable amount of power in the United States.

Bait and switch - that's NOT what Dawkins said and NOT what I critiqued him on.

Also the second argument you quote is not mine, nor the same as mine. It has a similar gramatical construct, but it aint the same argument.

98. Atheists arise: Dawkins spreads the A-word among America's unbelievers

Comment #75019 by Nick Good on October 1, 2007 at 11:24 am

Pseudonym Celestial Teapot wrote: I also think that the point Richard was making had less to do with conspiracy theories and more to do with a relatively small lobby group holding tremendous power.

Hitchens and all the rest give political viewpoints mixed in with their views on religion and atheism all the time.
That's fine and dandy if Richard Dawkins wants to re mould himself as a generic polemicist and political commentator as per Christopher Hitchens (but with a Chomskyite bent). However, my understanding is, that Richard's post is 'Professor of Public understanding of science' at Oxford University, not proto Chomsky, not Robert Fisk, not John Pilger.

The mistake here to my mind, was, that Richard used rather strong hyperbole (my bold): When you think about how fantastically successful the Jewish lobby has been, though, in fact, they are less numerous I am told - religious Jews anyway - than atheists and [yet they] more or less monopolise American foreign policy as far as many people can see

Now, he - Richard - is not arguing that he thinks America is excessively bias towards the state of Israel, not at all, otherwise he'd have said so to the Guardian hack (I'm assuming Richard is fairly quoted, always a danger), he's far too erudite to be that clumsy. No, we must take him at his word, and Richard goes quite considerably further.

If you really do think that... "Jews" come anywhere close to anything like the position where they "monopolise American foreign policy". I suspect we don't have the basis for a discussion and I'd sooner leave it at that.

Oh notice the 'not me guv ...honest' ..."as far as many people can see" cop out caveat.

99. Atheists arise: Dawkins spreads the A-word among America's unbelievers

Comment #74975 by Nick Good on October 1, 2007 at 9:02 am

Richard Dawkins, quoted by the Guardian: When you think about how fantastically successful the Jewish lobby has been, though, in fact, they are less numerous I am told - religious Jews anyway - than atheists and [yet they] more or less monopolise American foreign policy as far as many people can see

Many raving Lefty US-Zionist conspiracy theory moonbats perhaps!

Richard; come, come! You really are not doing yourself any favours with this US-Zionist conspiracy crap. You sound like Chomsky, Fisk or Pilger. You're getting dangerously close to feeding from the same trough as the frothing 9/11 conspiracy Lefties and the Michael Moore's of this world. This dripping with hyperbole statement is a bit too redolent of your operation Clarke County faux pas, which as it happens, appeared in the same Lefty rag. Good to see that, in this very article you are now back tracking considerably from that eye brow raising foray away from your core competencies and focus areas.

Believe it or not, there are quite a few atheists sympathetic to your points about the malign effects of religion, who agree with the broad thrust of US foreign policy. And it aint just Christopher Hitchens!

I humbly suggest that it may be wiser to separate the wood from the trees. To focus on the issues directly related to the malign effects of religion, forced indoctrination, the incursion of religion into the classroom, and the lab, it's inate subversion of reason etcetera, and be as 'gobby' about that as you will. But rather stay well away from issues which could seriously put off erstwhile potential allies in that noble cause.

I think you're wrong on your knee-jerk Lefty stuff; but that's not really my concern. I have no problems disagreeing with someone on X and agreeing with them on Y - Clearly you don't either, or else you wouldn't have Hitchens' stuff all over this site. My concern is, that I just think this generic 'Pilgeresque' script, rather dilutes your effectiveness.

Remember Alan Greenspan - appointed by Regan, and Carl Rove, are both atheists. As are probably a few other, senior and influential Republicans - for one I highly suspect Paul Wolferwitz is. I think you've made a mistake assuming that the vast bulk of US atheists are natural Democrat supporters. There will be plenty of Republicans too.

Nick Good - South Africa

PS - I have a foreskin

100. Why are we Muslims so self-destructive?

Comment #73399 by Nick Good on September 25, 2007 at 12:47 am

madhatter wrote: What makes you call him [Mohandras Gandhi] a "racist"?

Oh, I think this, amongst other gems, can reasonably be taken as a bit of a hint...

Ours is one continued struggle against degradation sought to be inflicted upon us by the European, who desire to degrade us to the level of the raw Kaffir, whose occupation is hunting and whose sole ambition is to collect a certain number of cattle to buy a wife with, and then pass his life in indolence and nakedness.

Source