Comments by Chris Davis

Comment #37269 by Chris Davis on May 4, 2007 at 12:12 am

@Aquambulus hirsutus

I'm sorry you're dropping that. As I understand it (and correct me if I'm incorrect) Kaffir is what the Asians in early South Africa called the indigenous black population, because they were (Islamic) unbelievers.

This derogatory term was then taken over by Whitey as a pithy nasty term for the black people they derided for different reasons. Says a lot about just how confused the race-related hatred became over there.

Which means that as well as an ironic term for your status vis a vis Islam, you'd also be cocking a snook at racism. I'd keep it. (ex)SA types of any albedo would, I'm sure, get the sarcasm.

CD

52. Interview with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #36450 by Chris Davis on May 1, 2007 at 7:09 am

Excellent! The book should be good stuff.

Though Dr. Dawkins is of course the One True AntiGod, I look forward to reading Hitchens on this subject: he always manages to combine intemperance and anger with such pinpoint-precision arguments that no-one, however offended and hostile, can fail to miss them.

I don't see the fuss about his ethanol absorption: his arguments were perfectly coherent. I'm sure getting somewhat tiddly is good preparation for going on the Daily Show to sell a serious subject in a manic comedy environment and a couple of minutes to do it in.

CD

53. Atheism's Big Night In Little Rock

Comment #35968 by Chris Davis on April 29, 2007 at 3:38 pm

MelM wrote:

...what the young man described wasn't belief, but hope.

I think this sort of statement, pointing people to reality, can be effective ... In the example given, the man may never have heard--explicitly stated--that what one believes or feels or hopes, isn't true just because of the belief or feeling or hope.

You have an interesting point. I've been spending some time recently in a certain pit of online gormlessness where a gallant band of atheists are fighting to save the minds of some of the thickest 'born-again' Christians I've ever encountered.

One of their recurring complaints really does go along the lines of 'why would you want to be an atheist when we Christians get to go and meet our deceased friends in heaven when we die, and so on. They really do believe that one's belief system should be chosen entirely on the basis of its benefits package. The degree to which it reflects reality is simply not a concern to them.

And they're not interested in hear about logical flaws in their chosen beliefs, either. Gross Biblical self-contradiction is simply answered with 'all things are possible with Jesus'. Pascal's Wager comes up several times a day. Evolution is the work of Satan, and is believed to encompass 'monkeys changing into men' - nonsense because there are still monkeys around; abiogenesis - 'pond-slime changing into men'; and cosmogony - 'where did all that matter for the Big Bang come from?'.

Certainly there's no sign that presenting people in such a forum with succinct facts has any obvious effects. Perhaps, if it were possible to make them really think about it, some consciousness could be raised, but as it is their minds are wrapped up so tightly in their warm and fluffy fantasy that only Jesus hisself could extract them from it.

CD

54. Dinesh D'Souza says I don't exist: an atheist at Virginia Tech

Comment #33695 by Chris Davis on April 21, 2007 at 6:57 am

Where are the opium dealers when tragedies like VT happen?

Even though they know that they could give enormous comfort to the victims of such horrors, they stay away.

If they could forget their selfish money-grubbing for an instant, what would it really cost for a dealer to go around the grieving crowds, giving free shots of smack to those who are particularly affected? Not much, I imagine, especially when measured against the enormous comfort they would provide.

But they're never there. Money means too much for them. They probably don't even give discounts.

CD

55. Religious bias colors doctors' views: survey

Comment #31254 by Chris Davis on April 11, 2007 at 6:07 pm

Interesting. I had my vasectomy in Scotland, with a similar backstory (didn't want kids etc.). In my case, though, all the medics were almost enthusiastic, and nary a question was asked.

It's possible that they took one look at me and decided that the last thing the world needed was more copies of my genes around...

My expensive medical insurance declined to pay, on the grounds that the procedure was elective. Strangely, they cover the costs of pregnancy. Presumably having sprogs is one of those 'acts of god', or something.

CD

56. The Coulter Hoax: How Ann Coulter Exposed the Intelligent Design Movement

Comment #30767 by Chris Davis on April 9, 2007 at 6:05 pm

Nice! Humour's an excellent way to respond to Coulter - to counter the powerful urge to bite her throat out.

CD

57. Answers To the Atheists

Comment #30448 by Chris Davis on April 8, 2007 at 4:33 am

There seems to be some confusion over the matter of Dawkins and Harris giving stick to 'moderate' religionists instead of playing it safe and aiming their scorn purely at the fundamentalists and extremists. Lumpen Christians are rather peeved to be told that they're just as bad as their lunatic fringe, but I think the criticism is entirely deserved.

In the first place, even ignoring the question of Biblical inerrancy, why should 'moderates' feel able to cherry-pick the bits of scripture that they agree with, and ignore the others? On what basis can they arbitrarily decide that even the Ten Commandments may be whittled down here and there to avoid clashes with 21st century sensibilities? If various articles that a modern outlook says are a bit off may be dispensed with, why call oneself Christian at all? Is it all up for grabs? If honouring thy parents is discretionary, might murder be OK if fashions change?

In this regard, fundamentalists are merely being true to the text. If their God exists at all, and the Bible is His supposed words, it's hardly up to ordinary mortals to decide which of the tenets to agree with, and which not.

In the second place, even the most lax Christian must still accept the existence of God, Jesus and the basic redemption scenario laid out in the Bible. In supporting and advocating this fantasy world, moderates provide the enablers for fundamentalist belief. By the time someone notices that little Davy Koresh is perhaps taking it all a little too seriously, the damage is probably done.

There's also a sense in which the passage from moderate to extremist is flower-strewn by the more conventionally devout. Initially, unusual levels of religiosity are encouraged and rewarded. The encouragement continues all the way up to the point where piety suddenly becomes classed as fanaticism. How is even the fanatic himself supposed to make sense of all this? He probably doesn't need to - at the terminal stages of this delusion, the Bible need be the only trusted source of information, and it has nothing but encouragement and succour for the fanatic.

For encouraging and providing the stage and context for fundamentalism; for having no ammunition but arbitrary good taste to place against it; for support either active or passive until the last moment, moderate believers deserve as much criticism as the fundamentalists they engender.

CD

58. Answers To the Atheists

Comment #30350 by Chris Davis on April 7, 2007 at 7:09 pm

the idea that religion is primarily destructive lies at the heart of the neo-atheist argument

No, it doesn't! And I beg my colleagues here present not to get dragged into this silly argument about whether religion is, on balance, a force for good or bad.

What lies at the heart of the neo-atheist argument is that there is no god.

CD

59. Scientist Finds the Beginnings of Morality in Primate Behavior

Comment #30071 by Chris Davis on April 6, 2007 at 6:13 pm

@ peterdf

I found your comment as interesting as this fascinating article. It's amazed me for some time how resistant otherwise sensible people are to the idea of humans having instincts at all. And those who will accept that they do still tend to cling to the notion of an overarching 'free will' that makes our every move pre-rationalised and subject to our marvellous intellect.

I'm with Pinker on the idea that consciousness is an illusion - a post-facto rationalisation of actions that are in reality a combination of reflex, habit and instinct. Only on rare occasions do we apply intellect to our decisions at all, and when we do our choices are entirely constrained. Although we tell ourselves we can in theory make our choices entirely arbitrarily, in fact we can only ever choose the option that is optimal for our current requirements. Even if that requirement includes 'do something surprising', we simply choose the option that maximises 'surprisingness'.

CD

60. Creationism debate continues to evolve

Comment #29821 by Chris Davis on April 5, 2007 at 2:35 am

johntfiorito - thanks a bunch for the pointer to the new Miller Experiment at
Scientific American

This is something I've needed for a while.

Josh, any chance of putting the article in the Science category? It's important ammunition.

CD

61. Snake Oil and Holy Water

Comment #29699 by Chris Davis on April 4, 2007 at 8:11 am

A little reminder I use:

Not Energy

CD

62. The Selfish Green

Comment #29685 by Chris Davis on April 4, 2007 at 4:52 am

I was a little saddened that no-one on the panel sees that a solution to this problem - caused at least in part by technology - might itself come from technology. Seems to me it's the ace up the sleeve of humanity: something we can do rather well, as opposed to the self-denial path that many appear to be advocating, and which we're very bad at.

(And there's more than a bit of self-flagellation in it: the public is mass-buying into the idea that, having created the problem with our greed, we must suffer abstemiousness in all things to rectify it. This strays toward the magical thinking found in Lenten or Ramadan denial rituals.)

But there are technological solutions, albeit speculative in some case, to these issues - just as there are for global hunger. As an example: the only way put forward so far to deal with CO2 buildup has been to reduce the supply side - massively reducing our current CO2 injection by eschewing all carbon-producing technology. (The self-punishing aspect of this can be seen in the glee with which the public have begun to attack air travel, despite its relatively tiny footprint.)

But what, instead, of carbon sequestration - the process of extracting CO2 from the air and burying it in deep ocean trenches, subterranean salt domes, or porous rock formation? This idea has been on the cards for decades, but only recently noticed by the public thanks to Richard Branson's (possibly Quixotic) challenge.

At present, systems for implementing sequestration are energy-hungry, which only underlines the vital importance of cheap, clean energy as a prerequisite for tackling these things. Nevertheless, sequestration is not tied to geography: CO2 capture can be carried out near sources of essentially free geothermal energy, perhaps capturing the large carbon injection produced by volcanic activity. Solid CO2 can be transported (at first; and then piped) to suitable sequestering point above deep trenches.

The volumes involved would have to be enormous, and require huge investment in manpower and hardware. The Carbon Credit scheme, and trading thereof, provides the best financial incentive for private companies to invest in starting such systems up. The eventual - but probably inevitable - arrival of fusion power should allow construction of CO2 capture systems to take place anywhere on the planet. In time, faster/better/cheaper methods for CO2 capture may arise with lower energy requirements, perhaps allowing individual towns, villages and even ordinary consumers to earn money from capturing CO2.

Away from the furious public eco-debates, some groups are already getting on with it: Japan announced plans to bury 200 million tons of CO2 annually by 2020. Another obvious player is the oil industry - already operating giant raw-material handling systems around the world. BP is working on a $1-billion plant near Los Angeles to convert petroleum coke, a by-product of oil refining, into hydrogen, and sequester about four million tons of carbon dioxide a year.

This may all be wildly optimistic, but consider it at least an illustration of a technological approach to climate and other ecological problems that stands, in my view, a better chance of general take-up than trying to talk people into giving up their luxuries.

CD

63. Richard Dawkins at The Sunday Times Oxford Literary Festival

Comment #29484 by Chris Davis on April 3, 2007 at 4:37 am

Right - that's my signed copy of 'The God Delusion' versus your Bible, similarly inscribed.

See you in a century.

CD

64. Richard Dawkins at The Sunday Times Oxford Literary Festival

Comment #28824 by Chris Davis on March 31, 2007 at 5:03 am

Robert O'Brien wrote:

Greatest minds in science?

You doubt it? Wanna take a bet that in a hundred years Richard Dawkins' name will have the prominence of Darwin, while McGrath - if he's remembered at all - will be at best an also-ran among lumpenapologists for superstition?

CD

65. Stephen Hawking Says Universe Created from Nothing

Comment #28560 by Chris Davis on March 29, 2007 at 7:26 pm

Regardless of Penrose's excellent work on various subjects, I'm afraid he's still bound for Purgatory for suggesting that AI will never succeed. And adducing quantum effects in microtubules to explain why neurons are magic and thus impossible to duplicate. Fie, etc.

CD

66. U.S. Mint goof creates 'Godless dollars'

Comment #24905 by Chris Davis on March 9, 2007 at 5:46 am

Interesting to compare 'E Pluribus Unum' with other mottoes: 'Arbeit macht Frei' at the gates of Dachau, and 'Ex Unitate Vires' on apartheid-era South African coinage.

CD

67. Why Children Love Their Security Blankets

Comment #24904 by Chris Davis on March 9, 2007 at 5:38 am

Hmm. Damn.

Does this mean I should throw away my meteorite? It's just a bit of nickel iron.

CD

68. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #24382 by Chris Davis on March 6, 2007 at 9:48 am

What puzzles me is how on earth Robertson managed to get his scribblings published. Anyone reading his stuff on freechurch.org will be struck by how stultifying it is. I can't imagine even True Believers(tm) being much motivated to spend good money on a whole bookful.

Robertson himself, it appears, thinks it's pure gold, and seems near-desperate to see it in print. Veteran readers of these pages will recall how peeved he was when Josh declined to post the second and subsequent of his 'Dawkins Delusion' essays, having put up the first one as another example of the folly of god-botherers. He complained here, on freecrutch, and directly to Josh about this loss of a preaching platform, citing as evidence of its value the large number of comments the essay had generated. In fact, of course, the commentary was largely the result of the author's own appearance in the thread, happily defending the indefensible and tutting when anyone said 'fuck' in exasperation.

It appears that since then he has finally found an outlet for his stuff, but one has to wonder how. What publisher would bet money on sales of this thing?

It's a cause for concern: most proselytisers would be happy with the opportunity to hold forth to a captive audience once a week. Robertson wants more - but how much? Will an occasional book based on a feeble rebuttal of someone else's hard work be enough? When I try to ponder how far this might go, images of a Ted Haggard rally dance, unbidden, before my eyes...

69. Hunting chimps may change view of human evolution

Comment #22945 by Chris Davis on February 24, 2007 at 7:59 pm

NormanDoering wrote:

It's not just chimps that use language. Remember the Gorilla Koko.

After having been a fan for many years, I've utterly lost faith in Koko.

The first blow came about a month after I'd finally signed up to receive the email newsletter from the Koko Foundation. I started receiving gambling spam addressed to the specific mailbox I'd created for the newsletter, which only they had ever seen. I get it to this day, but like other such it's deleted on receipt. At the time I figured it could have been an address-book harvester virus, or an employee making a buck selling their mailing list. Now I'm not sure it isn't standard practice.

The real killer was when, after I'd extolled Koko's wonderful abilities to a sceptical woman on another forum, she went looking for evidence herself. She uncovered a transcript of an open webcast by Koko and Dr. Penny Patterson, her companion. To call it disappointing would be a massive understatement: it was pathetic.

Koko came across as an idiot, with neither interest in nor comprehension of what was going on. Her communication - what there was of it - consisted of semi-random babble with little or no relation to the questions posed or the context, though Patterson tied herself in desperate knots trying to suggest deep meaning and cleverness behind every utterance.

The transcript is here. Draw your own conclusions. I'm unable to escape the suspicion that the Koko Foundation is largely a setup to coax donations out of the public together with a nice little earner selling their growing mailing list to spammers. I'd love to be wrong, however.

CD

70. Presentation on Atheism

Comment #22714 by Chris Davis on February 21, 2007 at 8:33 am

Ha! Well done, Spaceman Spiff! I was just about to ask what was wrong with Peppered Moths, but you got there first. Thanks for the references.

CD

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

Comment #20904 by Chris Davis on February 7, 2007 at 2:07 am

Oh, to have a penny for every proselytising god-botherer who prefaces his speech by announcing that he 'used to be an atheist' - but now, of course, the scales have fallen from his eyes.

Dig deeper and you discover that in fact he was simply so ignorant he had no stance at all on the issue. His 'enlightenment' will have consisted entirely of finally noticing the god argument, and swallowing its simplistic answers whole.

McGrath is certainly one of these, and is in every way a Joiner: he was an 'atheist' when it was cool to be, and a theist for similar reasons. No doubt he can count himself lucky that his social circle never tried heroin.

CD

72. Former exec in Irvine says he was fired over religion

Comment #19140 by Chris Davis on January 25, 2007 at 6:24 am

Hmm. While I feel indignant about this bloke being fired for insufficient religious mania, I'm conscious of the fact that I'd be just as unhappy as his employer if I discovered a serious god-botherer working for me.

As a matter of interest, how would one go about keeping the devout out of one's business without falling foul of the law? Could one require as part of the Conditions of Employment some activity that a godder wouldn't be able to handle? Compulsory membership of the company darts team, say, using a board with a picture of JC on it? An offensive company motto?

CD

73. Randi and 800 Other Amazing Skeptics

Comment #19110 by Chris Davis on January 25, 2007 at 2:48 am

Many years ago in, I think, Omni magazine, there was wonderful example of one of Geller's blunders, caught on camera. He'd actually photographed himself pulling a fast one.

Some university types were putting him through his paces. One exercise was 'psychic photographs', in which Geller pointed a lens-capped camera (supplied by the researchers) at his head and pulled the trigger. Geller shot off a few, but announced that the vibes weren't right and he'd try again later.

Various other experiments were tried, including at one stage a stunt which involved Geller being locked in a room by himself...with the camera, unnoticed by the researchers. Well, Randi says scientists are the easiest to fool, because they just can't grasp that their subject will use simple dirty tricks.

Later when the group was together, Geller grabbed the camera again and banged off the rest of the reel, announcing that he felt strongly that he'd gotten at least one good shot. And when they developed the film, there was indeed an image on one frame.

What Geller hadn't realised was that the camera had a deep fish-eye lens fitted. Even the smallest chink twixt lens and cap would give a good image. The picture showed an annular image of a room, with Geller's face close up, his fingers holding the lens cap a short distance off the lens.

The researchers duplicated the effect with an ordinary lens, and the result was weird swirls of light strangely similar to 'psychic' photos. Busted. I've not seen the image since, alas.

CD

74. Randi and 800 Other Amazing Skeptics

Comment #19108 by Chris Davis on January 25, 2007 at 2:24 am

Hell. Hitchens, who regards evolution as an ingenious explanation which unfortunately doesn't convince his Catholicism. He deserves considerable praise for outing that wretched bitch Teresa, but he's a rather selective sceptic.

And South Park, though one of my favourite shows, characterised atheism as causing people to shit through their mouths. Though Stone & Parker have given several religions a good kicking, Christianity is usually treated with considerable delicacy.

CD

75. Do You Believe in Magic?

Comment #18880 by Chris Davis on January 23, 2007 at 12:09 pm

It's hard to avoid the hypothesis that early magical thinking is the root of religion. The article hints that there must be some benefit to this adaptation, but that sounds to me like argumentum ad antiquitatem. Just because it's ubiquitous doesn't make it good. It could be a mental appendix.

There's also a belief that disillusioning kids about such rubbish - from Santa on down - will somehow damage or deprive them. Will it? As a kid I was entirely aware that I was neither cowboy nor Indian, cop nor robber, but it didn't stop me having fun shooting my little chums with my finger.

Have any of the logical positivists here assembled ever tried to raise a sprog without this crap? To let them know that magical thinking=make-believe right from the start?

CD

76. Britons unconvinced on evolution

Comment #18813 by Chris Davis on January 23, 2007 at 4:05 am

This is a year-old poll, and has been rather superseded by a more recent one with less horrifying figures. Should be somewhere hereabouts.

When these figures came out it shocked the hell out of many here. I immediately began drawing up plans to fly a hang-glider into St Pauls. The newer figures were more reassuring. I think the big difference in the approach of the new poll lay in not presupposing that the respondents had a religious attitude.

If asked what religion they are, many Brits will say that they're CofE. If asked whether they have a religion, most Brits say they don't.

When asked about cosmogony, biogenesis etc., I think the answers are often a mess. Many Brits don't have a firm clue either way, but don't want to be among 'don't knows' in such an important matter. So they'll clutch at whatever straws are offered. Most have heard - thanks to Discovery Institute propaganda - that there's a 'controversy' over evolution, so they might not grasp at that one too enthusiastically anymore. The '[something] did it' argument sounds simple and reassuring, and doesn't specifically mention de Lawd, so perhaps they choose that.

The education system here clearly has a major task ahead. Even simply literacy seems a hard goal to reach.

CD

77. Beyond the Believers

Comment #18554 by Chris Davis on January 21, 2007 at 5:08 pm

@iamb_spartacus,

Forum topic now set up in the Philosophy section at
http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=90050#90050

Apologies for the delay.

CD

78. Beyond the Believers

Comment #18360 by Chris Davis on January 20, 2007 at 3:31 am

Are your feelings "true"? If you said you were angry with me, and I asked you to prove it, how would you proceed?

Ooh, I am a bit naughty. I confess that I hoped you might adduce emotions as an example of a non-scientific True thing. I don't buy it, and neither, I've been pleased to note in recent times, does our Dr. Richard (PBUH).

Because emotional states are not entirely mental ones. And even if they were I fancy an EEG could pick them up. As it is, emotions can be measured by a host of somatic effects alone. In anger's case that would include hypertension, adrenergic effects, ACTH, and the rest of the fight/flight, etc.

Richard specifically mentioned less hard-science but no less conclusive forensics that can confirm the truth of someone saying 'I love you'. Countless visible, nonverbal clues that we are specifically evolved to read come to one's aid. We're good at detecting falsehood because we operate on trust much of the time. Extending that, we're good at reading and projecting emotions because we're social animals and no man is an island (except Fred Mauritius, of course).

Emotions themselves are Scientific (in the comic-book sense I defined previously). They're hard-wired survival behaviours that nature gives us, essentially from birth, to allow us to respond optimally to situations without having to reason them out. The downside is that they're inflexible, and many are no longer valid in the novel environment we've built. Hence RD's exhortation to disobey these and other genetic imperatives in favour of reasoned responses.

But that's enough of my personal hobby for now.

Spart, if you're finding this exchange as enjoyable as I am, we really should take it to the forum, where we can ponder at length and even - my favourite - exchange diagrams. Other persons of goodwill can join in on topic, and we don't have to hunt through an old, cooling thread to find the bits.

Would you like me to set this up?

CD

79. Beyond the Believers

Comment #18278 by Chris Davis on January 19, 2007 at 9:17 am

iamb_spartacus,

On what grounds can we define people as good or bad besides their actions?

Bit utilitarian, what? Weinstein's final phrase was, you will recall, that 'to get good people to do evil things' requires religion. Meaning that people who are otherwise good - even extremely good adherents to universal moral principles - may be induced to do evil things by religion. Two points: a) Obviously, in doing evil things, they ipso fact cease to be good, and b) in their own minds they're still doing good, because they're faithfully following the dictates of their religion, perhaps sacrificing a great deal in the process.

The issue in all this is the disparity between religious morality and the more fundamental instinctive morality we all have. The former is often a superset of the latter, and may include items necessary for the propagation of the religion that run counter to instinctive morality.

The classic example being the 9/11 hijackers: these were certainly 'good' people according to their lights, but their faith (alone) told them that flying a plane into a building was a noble act.

Saying things like "any religion has a violent tendency" or "religion leads good people to do evil" as though this were more than cicumstantially demonstrable does not do the rationalist view any favors.

I'd like to prepend a 'may, unpredictably' to both the verbs in your quotes. The point is that religion, being a non-rational mental construct, can encompass pretty much any conceivable element. In many case they include a concept of an evil incarnate, which a follower is duty bound to fight and kill. As no such thing really exists, it has no defining physical referents, so the adherent is free to point to real things and people as a substitute manifestation.

Supposedly civilised US Christians in high positions call for the death of homosexuals. Several cases have recently been revealed in which women in Sharia countries face death by stoning for being pregnant and unmarried. And there's those hijackers again...

Religions are dangerous to the same extent that drunk or mad people are dangerous: their motivations and actions are logically unpredictable. That's scary.

You are welcome to your own ethics, but we are a nation of laws. How do you square this principle with the constitution, especially the 1st, 5th, and 14th amendments?

Wrong country, I'm afraid, cor blimey 'ow's yer father. Notwithstanding which: can you not imagine an individual or group so deranged by a loony belief system that their very existence is dangerous to life? Ignoring the propaganda that frequently seeks to make such people out of those who simply have a differing ideology, the reality is not all that inconceivable. If facilities for deprogramming them are not available, killing them may be the only option.

I'd like to come at the science question - especially the 'science doesn't have all the answers' question - from another angle. For me, capital-s-Science is nothing less than the search for (capital-T) Truth. The only truth, furthermore, that I consider worth having: subject to adversarial scrutiny, tests of repeatability and so on. Within that framework, if it's true, it's scientific; and if it's not scientific, it's not true. Dogmatic though that sounds even to me, I can't - sitting here - think of anything that is true but doesn't at least come within the compass of science.

'Hydrogen has an electron' is true. 'God is love' is bollocks, frankly.

CD

80. Discussion of The God Delusion

Comment #18269 by Chris Davis on January 19, 2007 at 8:07 am

@ScienceBreath

If you admit engineers into this sentence then scientists should be in there too. For example, a lot of physicists and chemists work on bomb design, often performing fundamental research as they do so.

I don't disagree. This sort of thing was at the core of my post: if we blame the average god-botherer for their part in extremism - rightly, I think - then no-one in any aspect of the sciences can duck responsibility for the nasty things that come out of science.

I'm not happy with this, but it sort-of follows, I think.

Fixing the science side of this equation should include, I believe, taking public funding for science out of the hands of the military (something I recall Clinton tried, but which was presumably reversed by the new hawks in power). More tricky is what to do about medicine, where drug discovery is so hugely expensive that only private capitalism can fund it. If the billions so spent actually result in a useful treatment, it's hardly surprising that those capitalists will try to maximise their profits - with all the problems of cover-up and damage that may result. I don't really know what can be done about this downside.

To fix religion, of course, you just have to hang all the priests.

CD

81. Beyond the Believers

Comment #18116 by Chris Davis on January 18, 2007 at 12:02 pm

@iamb_spartacus

Your points are very interesting. I seem to be becoming less of a Harris fan the more I see of him. Can I press you on a few items in your posting?

o It seems to me that accusing Islam of having a unique tendency toward 'terrorism' - nasty word - is to be both partisan and short-sighted - any religion has such a tendency, as best summed up in the line about good people doing evil things: a weltanschauung based on supernatural fantasy will do that to ya, almost inevitably.

o I can envisage a belief system so horrible that killing its adherents would be not just an ethical act, but perhaps the only response.

o Do you have a detailed view on the idea that 'humans require narrative structures to maintain sanity both as individuals and social groups'? I assume this is arguing for the Noble Lie, on the basis that without their opium, the masses will go nuts. This may turn out to be true, though I suspect that given enough bread and circuses they might settle down eventually. Whatever the case, I really can't square it with my own scrawny atheist's morality to support lying to the public, no matter how comforting, no matter what the alternatives.

It's not, after all, a neutral matter: without religion perhaps the public will kill themselves; but with it they tend to kill others. If those who can't handle the truth are moved to thin themselves out a little I can't say I'll mourn overmuch.

CD

82. Discussion of The God Delusion

Comment #18033 by Chris Davis on January 18, 2007 at 3:09 am

can anyone think of instances in which "science has caused destruction"?

Well, I'll play Devil's Advocate on that one for a moment:

The godders, and society in general, credit science with responsibility for the H-bomb, Thalidomide, 'Frankenstein food' and of course weapons, weapons, weapons.

As a science junkie myself I'd say nonsense - science just uncovers the knowledge. Blame - if you must blame at all - the military and engineers who implement pure scientific knowledge in ways we find repugnant, or make mistakes in their implementation that lead to death and disfigurement; or produce stuff that, though innocent, scares people who don't understand it.

But it seems to me that if we validly attack 'moderate' religionists for providing the framework for extremists, we also have to accept the indirect blame for the ramifications of science.

'Moderate religion' is harmless crap, and pure science is a wholly laudable search for truth. The problem arises in the ramifications of both of these, which is where people start dying.

Just a thought.

Ultimately, what these book reviewers seemed to sidestep was, once again, the point that religion stands or falls by the existence or otherwise of a deity. And it's clear there isn't one. How, then, can it be right in any way to continue to propagate this untruth?

Greer argues for the 'Noble Lie' that keeps societies together. It's a point, but I don't know if it's the point. Are we really still at the stage where society - deprived of their heavenly comfort blanket - will fall to bits? We might be.

My own feeling is to give 'em the Truth and be damned, but that's because I don't much care what happens to humans. If universal atheism really would lead to social sundering, it's something to consider, much as I hate the idea.

CD

83. Christian Shrine Needs Two Exits, Israel Says

Comment #17808 by Chris Davis on January 16, 2007 at 5:12 pm

You'd expect a church to be more intelligently designed.

CD

84. Creationism special

Comment #17719 by Chris Davis on January 15, 2007 at 4:41 pm

While acknowledging my bias as one who dislikes children intensely, I have to agree with Wolpert. I've long thought as he does on this subject:

It's not that children can't grasp evolution, abiogenesis or cosmology - at any age provided the subject is appropriately couched 'See Janet acquire a transposon...'. The problem comes when they are being taught these explanations on one day, and fed religion's typically seductive, simplistic, comforting nonsense the day after.

And being told on day two that the scientific explanations come from godless madman and will imperil their eternal souls.

I've spoken to several of the products of this particular battle for hearts and minds, and it's quite clear which explanation wins. Understanding evolution is easy enough, but defending it against religion's caricatures, blandishments and outright lies takes experience and a solid knowledge of facts that schoolchildren can't be expected to muster. Religious memes are designed to spread by infection, and they do.

CD

85. Judge: Men can seek damages from church

Comment #17244 by Chris Davis on January 12, 2007 at 9:41 am

How long before the millions of children brainwashed over the years by the Catholic Church get to sue them for all the other forms of abuse?

CD

86. Richard Dawkins' Report Card

Comment #16998 by Chris Davis on January 10, 2007 at 3:17 am

@Will in Aus
This is the Official Richard Dawkins website. When a book comes out with the early school reports of the great and good, and it includes RD's, posting it here as light relief is entirely appropriate. Thanks, Josh.

Books like this are amusing, especially when you see world-changing people being marked down or criticised for trifles when young. If nothing else, it may give comfort to those who have suffered similar faint praise or damnation, and gone on to become rather nice, competent people anyway.

CD

87. Questionable Mission

Comment #16675 by Chris Davis on January 8, 2007 at 2:35 am

Nazgul on January 7, 2007 at 8:48 pm
This sounds like the prologue to a not-very-happy-ending sci-fi novel. Oh Sh#%@# !!!

Actually, I've been thinking about the similarities between Maj. Jack J Catton and Maj. Jack C Ripper from 'Dr. Strangelove'. Are they by any chance related? I think the 53rd Bomber Wing should be informed.

CD

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

Comment #16518 by Chris Davis on January 7, 2007 at 5:06 am

Seems to me that New Atheism (I love the way this phrase is starting to emerge) may have a bit of a problem with stuff like this. Like the caricature of the loopy shrink, there are inevitably going to be some prominent atheists who have reached their position starting from a theist one which they found unsatisfactory, via a dedicated search for something more rational. But though they've thrown off the chains of religion, they aren't completely clear of a desire for something mysterious and wonderful.

There's hints of this in Sagan's fiction, for instance. Although a devout materialist atheist he couldn't resist putting in the final deist bit in Contact, where his character finds a perfect circle buried in Pi - a clear wink from the creator of the universe etc. Yes, it's just fiction, but I'd suspect that inside many an atheist - especially those who had to shake off religion first - there's a deist wanting to get back out. Harris strikes me as perhaps one of these.

If you really accept the total absence of supernaturalism, then the only path to ESP, reincarnation, advanced mental states reached through meditation and the rest must be via evolution. Given the huge survival advantage that would be conferred on a telepathic animal - predator or prey - then if brain tissue was capable of wireless communication I'd expect to see it all over the animal kingdom. Given that it a) would have to be an innate property of neurons, and b) would have to employ something other than the four known forces or it would be readily detectable, ESP seems to be ruled out from first principles. Putting it down as an emergent property of consciousness is just more special pleading.

Reincarnation requires souls, which is silly. Meditation, if it really has benefits over a short nap and/or autohypnosis, is another feature that one would expect to see running wildfire in nature because of its advantages. All of these things come down to wishful thinking by people who can't, it appears, quite give up the last remnants of mysticism along with their gods.

As I say, there may be a lot of it about, and it represents a vulnerable heel if atheism's spokespeople can't shake it off. This may be unfair to Harris, but any whiff of this type of woo nonsense will be pounced upon by such as Gorenfeld - apparently a theist with an agenda. Happily, Dr. Dawkins has shown repeatedly that he won't touch supernature with Harris' bargepole, and long may he reign.

CD

89. Not Yet The Majority But No Longer Silent

Comment #15480 by Chris Davis on December 31, 2006 at 5:40 pm

The problem for me with the Brights - and I have a 2-digit membership number - has little to do with the term itself. What I object to is that what was initially touted as a cutesy alternative to 'atheist' has lately become anything but.

The matter came up on the Brights forum some months ago, when I tried to inform a newcomer what being a member actually meant: 'Bright', I said, is a US-public-friendly synonym for 'atheist'.

Oh, no it isn't, a forum admin heatedly informed me. It's not necessary to be an atheist to be a Bright - all you need is to identify yourself as having a naturalistic worldview free from supernatural elements. Well, I knew that, of course, but the phrase had always struck me as a slightly wet way of saying: No Gods. Here, again, I was corrected by the Admin:

If you believe, he said, that a deity is a naturalistic, non-supernatural phenomenon, then there's nothing to stop you signing up as a Bright. There may be other Brights who disagree with you on the matter, but you're still a valid Bright. It doesn't matter how implausible or unlikely a 'naturalistic deity' might seem, if you believe it, come on in.

I was referred to the Official Bright Mission Statement, where essentially these precise words were restated. What had seemed merely twattish language was revealed as a loophole you could drive a bishop through.

I'm pretty disgusted, and so were many others viewing the thread who had clearly been under same impression as I. In the earliest days of the Brights there seemed to be no such soft-focus and weaselling: Brights are atheists was plain and clear, and it was on that basis that I - and presumably Dennet, Dawkins and many others - signed up. I tried to resign my membership, but I could find no mechanism for doing so. On reflection I might as well stay signed up. It'll hardly make much of a difference, given that the only actual activity that ordinary Brights are encouraged to carry out is ... to propagate the existence of Brights. It seems that Geisert and Futrell have created nothing more than a meme whose function is to spread. There's nothing else for lumpenBrights to do. Except donate money, of course.

So I reckon they're a wank, and I plan to ignore them.

CD

90. God's Enemies Are More Honest Than His Friends

Comment #15163 by Chris Davis on December 29, 2006 at 8:36 am

On the evidence it seems my use of 'cowardice' and 'hypocrisy' is being interpreted a great deal more strongly that I intended, and perhaps it's better if I withdraw the words. I was being hyperbolic, but it's clear that I lack the subtlety to get that across.

Please note that 'smacks of' is supposed to mean 'appears to be', not 'is'. The appearance is in the mind of the godders, and it's a perception, not reality. I still think that the use of the euphemisms rarely does us credit in religionists' eyes.

I'd also like to make it clear that there's nothing but sensible practicality in keeping the fact of one's atheism quiet in situations where being open about it could have serious effects on one's health, wealth and future. Unlike the godders, we have no divine imperative to declare our beliefs in the face of torture, and if I'm ever placed on a rack by inquisitors you may expect a very pious performance.

It may be, too, that I'm biased: I'm not a Humanist at all. I don't like humans very much, and their ability to inflict pain and death on each other over imaginary deities is one of the reasons. In matters of my religious affiliation, however, I'm an atheist - a third-generation atheist at that, and more smug than proud.

I've met a few people who were genuinely Good, and whose religion was partly instrumental in that goodness. I consider their beliefs to be a failing: they would have been better people if they were able to be Good without the drive to please a deity and win a heavenly prize. In all other cases I believe that most atheists are better people than those who cling to deities.

CD

91. God's Enemies Are More Honest Than His Friends

Comment #15161 by Chris Davis on December 29, 2006 at 8:06 am

JohnC

I'm sorry if you find my use of words like 'cowardice' and 'hypocrisy' offensive. I hope you realise that I don't intend these to apply in blanket fashion to all who shun the term atheist - I merely wished to point out that some atheists may be avoiding the term out of fear; and some may avoid the term despite knowing that it fits. Some atheists, in short, avoid this well-established, historically valid, technically accurate term because they allow the godders to set the context in which it's perceived.

And the other point I hoped to make is that the godders themselves are unlikely to recognise any subtleties - whatever they may be, I have no idea - between an atheist and a 'secular humanist', 'freethinker' or what-have-you. No more do I recognise any meaningful distinction between a 'Christian', a 'Lutheran' or a 'Presbyterian'. I have little knowledge and no interest in differences between these groups, because those differences have no bearing on my attitude to them - as opposed to their similarities, which count for everything.

And I'm sure that in the view of most godders of any stripe, an atheist and a Secular Humanist are seen as equally sinful, loathsome and damned. And why not?

If you wish to identify yourself as a Secular Humanist, let nothing stand in your way. Are you not, though, ipso facto an atheist too? And if you are, even though you may prefer the other term, would you reject the simpler characterisation? I do hope not.

I'm puzzled by your assertion that New Ageism - crystals, magic medicine and the rest - is a greater problem for society than religion. Seems to me that these little lunacies are the 'anything' in Chesterton's phrase, that people believe in when they drop deities. They're a problem, certainly, and must be addressed. But I'll consider them of primary importance only when the government introduces legislation to promote the teaching of astrology in special New Age schools.

Until then they're just another form of ignorance whose effects I can elect to avoid - unlike religion, which sets much of the baseline agenda for our laws and lives.

CD

92. God's Enemies Are More Honest Than His Friends

Comment #15147 by Chris Davis on December 29, 2006 at 5:57 am

I'm concerned at the recurring notion that the term 'atheist' has become so stigmatised and nasty that people who are atheists should shy away from it to avoid stigmatising themselves. It seems to me that as long as we shun the word it will continue to be an undeniable insult to be levelled at us. Terms like Bright and Freethinker, whatever their other merits, are chiefly used as euphemisms.

Better, surely, to reclaim the word and wear it with pride? This tactic has been used to good effect by various groups in he past.

The point is that 'atheist' is a technically correct term for someone who rejects the god hypothesis, and trying to be one but still reject the simple, common, descriptive word smacks of weakness, cowardice and even hypocrisy.

Atheism has a proud tradition going back as long as religion itself, and includes some of history's finest thinkers. Using the term confronts religion magical thinking head-on in a way that the other terms don't. Among the godders, though, you may be sure that 'Brights' and 'Freethinkers' are considered to be simply nasty ol' atheists anyway, with all the implied stigma.

'Agnostics' on the other hand, are no doubt considered by godders to be little more than stubborn believers-in-waiting, who have yet to open their hearts to (insert deity here). Perhaps they are, sometimes.

There is no way that the believers are ever going to like those who don't believe. They'll always hate 'em (even more than those who believe in different gods). Euphemistic terms may comfort nervous atheists, but to believers will mean only that the stigma of 'filthy atheist' continues to draw blood. The term is already applied to us; let's accept it and work on the stigma instead.

CD

93. Woman beaten on Jerusalem bus for refusing to move to rear seat

Comment #15131 by Chris Davis on December 29, 2006 at 4:15 am

Two cheers for Miriam Shear's courage, but while it's possible to see this in Rosa Parks terms - brave women battling for freedom against oppression - it's not really all that black and white (if you'll pardon the phrase).

And it could be seen as moderation v fundamentalism, but as TGD points out, the former is father to the latter. Moderate, lumpen believers like Miriam create and maintain the environment in which fundamentalists lunatics like the Haredim arise and flourish. Isn't it likely that Ms. Shear would be just as offended by someone taking a leak on her 'praying wall' as her orthodox oppressors were at the sight of a woman in the 'men only' section of the bus - and for the same reasons? The difference is one of degree.

CD

94. Marine Life Leaped From Simple to Complex After Greatest Mass Extinction

Comment #10644 by Chris Davis on November 28, 2006 at 5:17 pm

This reminds me strongly of the Cichlid fish of Lake Victoria, who appear to have gone from a small number of a single species to a truly gigantic range of sub-species, body plans, and systems for living and reproducing, in a mere 250,000 years. In this short time they've managed to fill every conceivable ecological niche in the vast lake.

If I understand this correctly, the Permo-Triassic boundary and the lake both constituted essentially empty ecological spaces, with no existing competition for resources and niches - so the animals just took them all.

Which suggests to me that evolution can move at a cracking pace if it has space to evolve into without competitive species. I wonder if this ties in with the discovery, featured on another page on this site, that meiosis produces a much wider range of genetic variation in a single generation than previously thought, but via a controlled process rather than relying on more statistically dangerous genetic damage and errors.

Looks like the Discovery Institute picked the wrong century to fight this theory.

CD

95. Atheists Agonistes

Comment #10605 by Chris Davis on November 28, 2006 at 1:55 pm

David Mathews,

What a strange person you are. Of all the things for you to tilt at in your righteous anger, you pick on ... science? Science is really just the organised and formalised search for What Is.

Let me understand what you're so cross about:

- Science has provided new, more efficient materials for war. But is this the fault of science (and scientists) or that of the Military and the Politicians who demand it, and control the only purse there is? One of your recent presidents - the cute one who occasionally made sense, even though he was another bloody god-botherer - tried to break this link, and make a portion of science funding available for non-military research. The bunch of psychos running the place at the moment made short work of that one, though.

- There is one exception where the tail wagged the dog. Prof Einstein and his chums grew increasingly nervous about the possibility of the Nazis building atomic energy-based weapons, and called for the Allies to get there first. They did. As it turned out, National Socialism's WMDs were not much more real than the other guy's, but you have to admit the dire mess that would have resulted if they had been less ephemeral.

That's the only situation I specifically recall in which science actually called for a weapon. We've been living under the mushroom shadow ever since, but let's face it: that particular genie emergence from its bottle was inevitable as electricity sometime over the next few decades, and - biased as I am - I'm rather glad that if anyone has to have them, it's the West.

- And science has provided machines that eat fossil fuels, and others that eat hydrocarbons and spew COx. But is this the fault of science and scientists again, or of manufacturing industry and the billions wanting cheap transport and the other products of the smelly factories?

It's a transition period. Fusion's a-coming. And other stuff you wouldn't believe.

And what other sins has science committed, in your jaundiced and Luddite eyes? It's certainly provided the lineaments of gratification for almost every material desire humanity's come up with. But is that science, or the manufacturers and entrepreneurs who spot a need and pay people to design something that fills it? Or is it perhaps the wretched billions themselves, who cheerfully spend their money on all these toys?

Frankly, blaming the search for knowledge is a little too Genesis for me. At this stage in Earth's development it'll be hard for you to find a little spot where you may retreat back to the Iron Age whence I gather you obtain your wisdom. The Amazon jungle, perhaps? Maybe they have a website...?

I think you've chosen unwisely, though: whatever problems the world has now, the only possible solutions will come from science, you see. Recycling your waste paper and using public transport is as nothing to heavy industrial carbon sequestration, which is due to be a very big game indeed. If you're determined to stay out of such things, the best contribution you can make is to not have any children - they really fuck up the environment.

Oh, and: in case you haven't noticed, antibiotics alone completely vindicate all of science, so stop being a silly bugger or they won't let you have any.

CD

96. Atheists Agonistes

Comment #10603 by Chris Davis on November 28, 2006 at 1:45 pm

97. Why Are Atheists So Angry? A Debate with Dennis Prager

Comment #10169 by Chris Davis on November 27, 2006 at 9:04 am

Interesting to see how Prager sidesteps the fact that religion is responsible for so much ghastly bloodshed over the years. Although this is really irrelevant to the existence of a deity, the superstitious are very fond of waving Stalin, Pol Pot and Hitler at atheists as evidences that atheism Really Screws You Up. (They tend to go a bit quiet about Hitler if you point them at images of Nazis cuddling cardinals at http://www.nobeliefs.com/nazis.htm, though.)

Prager neatly avoids this problem, however: oh yes, religion causes conflict, but only the false ones. His own version of fundamentalist Christianity has an unblemished history.

And how do you tell the difference between false, murderous superstition and the One True Faith? Easy: if they've ever done anything reprehensible, they're filthy, idolatrous pagans - regardless of how they paint themselves.

CD

98. Doubters do it from the pulpit

Comment #10156 by Chris Davis on November 27, 2006 at 7:41 am

Giles Frase wrote:
"After all, I am a failed atheist myself"

Sigh. If I had a gram of plutonium for every god-botherer who tries to demonstrate his street-cred by claiming once to have been an atheist, I'd be a plasma.

What flavour of atheism can this philosophical vicar possibly have tried? Not believing in god for a few hours one cold morning, at a time when puberty was starting to bite? Is it possible that he actually looked into the epistemological underpinning of atheism, and for a while had sound reason for rejecting imaginary friends?

Only to slip back into the comforting fuzziness when he concluded that there just had to be something...

CD

99. Backlash forces British Airways to review ban on wearing cross

Comment #9618 by Chris Davis on November 25, 2006 at 9:19 am

Having thought a bit about a 'No Gods' symbol I decided to have a go at making one. The result is here:

http://www.cubicsecond.org/images/web/nogosym.png

It's not subtle or clever, because I couldn't come up with anything that was. The Michelangelo image was the only well-recognised deity image I could find. The text is very short, and looked a bit skanky in the crossbar or the ring.

If anyone can use, it's yours. Suggestions for changes, edits or additions welcome. Other formats available.

CD

100. Backlash forces British Airways to review ban on wearing cross

Comment #9536 by Chris Davis on November 25, 2006 at 4:09 am

Re atheist symbols:

Yes, I think it's time that we atheists/humanists find our own symbol to get our point across.

It's a nice idea, but no-one seems to have produced a symbol everyone likes: there's the FSM, the IPU, the Brights logo, the big O and all the others.

Not easy to find a sympbol that encapsulates people whose commonality is that they don't do something. If there was a way to say 'No God', perhaps...

CD

More Pages: Previous | 1 2 3 | Next