51. Row Brews Over DUP Call for Schools to Teach Creationism

Comment #90876 by Shane McKee on November 26, 2007 at 2:40 pm

Good news. School principals in Lisburn have told the creationists on the City Council to go and get stuffed - *including* those schools with a "christian ethos":

http://www.lisburntoday.co.uk/news/SCHOOLS-REJECT-LISBURN-COUNCIL-CALL.3517793.jp

Dr Quinn [Principal of St Patrick's High School], stressing that he was not attacking any denomination in Northern Ireland, continued: "St Patrick's is not and will not be teaching in our science classes the religious dogma of certain fundamentalist Christian Sects from America who are promoting their own agenda.

"Lisburn wants to be known as a centre of educational excellence and not a medieval and inward looking town," he concluded.

52. Bankrolling Ali's Asylum

Comment #90845 by Shane McKee on November 26, 2007 at 1:48 pm

In fairness, folks, I think Sam was joking, and there is a certain layer of irony there.

Having said that, I am sure Ayaan Hirsi Ali probably gets bombarded with Christian evangelism - think about how high her stock rating would be to the Jesus camp if she converted! So it's very much in Rick Warren's interests to ensure her safety (he said cynically).

Sam may come out with some crazy stuff from time to time, but as long as it keeps folks thinking and on their toes, that's a good thing, surely? It's not as if the theists actually have any *arguments* or anything...

53. Tony Blair: Mention God and you're a 'nutter'

Comment #90378 by Shane McKee on November 25, 2007 at 12:11 am

Indeed. When will people learn that "faith" is a purely narcissistic *vice*, rather than a virtue?

Is Tony really that much different from George, whose pixie instructed him to invade Iraq? Sam is right. Faith is a *bad* thing.

54. On Being Not Muslim Enough

Comment #86669 by Shane McKee on November 9, 2007 at 11:48 pm

Folks, go easy on her - it sounds like she's in transition; a lot of us have Been There, and it can take some time (and can be disconcerting). I can identify with a lot of this when I was moving beyond Christianity.

Of course, the solution to being Not Muslim Enough is to be Not Muslim At All. Ayaan Hirsi Ali had the courage to realise this.

One thing we should actively try to do is *ease* the transition...

55. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #80369 by Shane McKee on October 21, 2007 at 1:33 pm

I suggest part of the problem is precisely that we have learned to tolerate all sorts of rampant buffoonery in our society - we reap the benefits of a scientific and medical enlightenment, yet dare not confront the woo, superstition and outright garbage that is creationism, "alternative medicine", UFOlogy, Atlantis-lore, etc. And, yes, religion is part of that, whether it be Christianity or Islam or whatever. Ayaan Hirsi Ali is correct when she notes that our tolerance of wacko opinion is interpreted as weakness, and it encourages the wackos further. Tolerance has, it would seem, come to mean protection from contrary argument, and *that* is completely counter to the principles of the enlightenment. People can say what they like, but they need to prepare to face the counter-argument.

56. I am creating artificial life, declares US gene pioneer

Comment #76480 by Shane McKee on October 6, 2007 at 1:22 am

Intelligent Design is the hard way; evolution is the easy way. This is not new science, but could prove useful some day.

57. The Bible's literary sins

Comment #63215 by Shane McKee on August 13, 2007 at 2:18 pm

I actually rather enjoy the bible, but I confess that's more because of familiarity and as a source of reminiscence. As a Christian, I must have read it cover to cover about 6 times, and many other smaller bits many many times.

That's probably the main reason I became an atheist.

Encourage Christians to *read* their bibles. 1 Samuel 15 is a goodie. Get them to read the resurrection stories in all four gospels in one sitting. Then again each evening for a fortnight. Raw therapy :-)

58. 'I have never been happier' says the man who won gold but lost God

Comment #53373 by Shane McKee on July 1, 2007 at 5:18 am

This is great news, and it rings so true. It's very brave of Jonathan to bring it out so publicly, and he's sure to get a lot of patronising rubbish from Christians about "backsliding" or "losing faith". I've argued many times that atheism can be post-Christian phenomenon, and I wish him all the very best. It's not easy, but this *is* the "Good Fight".

59. Sociable Darwinism

Comment #30554 by Shane McKee on April 8, 2007 at 3:21 pm

Dunno, folks - "Selfish Gene" type selection on a background of random variation is really the only way that information gets written into genepools. Higher level selection (e.g. at the level of the group) just changes the ecology, not the genetics directly. I think the HGP (and the other genome projects) backs that view up to a T.

Steve Gould's old line about re-running the tape of life, and not ending up with humans is often pressed in to support a group-selectionist view, but it's not really that appropriate - it's just a comment on the contingency of evolution, and a rebuttal of the notion that *we* (i.e. humans) are inevitable. All acceptable (obvious, even) under TSG modelling.

What I think *is* interesting, though, is the effect that this "group ecology" has on selection within the group or between related groups, combined with the developmental constraints that our evo-devo pals are serving up for us these days. When spandrels become adaptations... what seems to be the case is that biology is so flexible that natural selection makes no distinction between spandrels and previous adaptations - Phenotype is Everything (plus a bit of luck ;-)

60. Debate between Alister McGrath and Peter Atkins

Comment #28973 by Shane McKee on April 1, 2007 at 1:31 am

Yes indeed, NMcC, Our Wee Country does seem to have exported above its fair share of pixie huggers. Actually, I wonder if Alister actually has a bit of a CS Lewis wannabe thing going on... it would make a lot of sense. I take your point re CSL - he was definitely overrated (some theists I have run across think he was some sort of unanswerable master-intellect, which he clearly wasn't). But "Belfast boy follows in the footsteps of Lewis" does have a certain home-charm ring to it, no? I wonder when/if he'll make a Second Coming back to us in the benighted Praavince to save us from godlessness?

You just end up wishing that he'd pick his game up a bit.

PS. I think I was wrong - the virgin mary *was* in the Dawkins debate...

61. Debate between Alister McGrath and Peter Atkins

Comment #28910 by Shane McKee on March 31, 2007 at 3:00 pm

Dawkins may have asked Al about this; I'm not sure. However, Atkins did it too - to much the same effect. Yep, virgin birth, rising from the dead, casting out "demons" (how the feck *they* fit into our current understanding of epilepsy and mental illness is another question) and all that were pretty much de rigeur for your CVif you were applying for a god/demigod post back then. It helped to be related to the Big Guy - nepotism, I guess.

Equal opportunities has ironed most of these out by now.

I honestly think McGrath has not remotely considered the Bigger Picture, and like so many (very clever) Christian intellectuals, has spent his brain energy on erecting the most elaborate personal defences against rationality. What a waste of talent! Like CS Lewis - smart chap, stupid ideas.

62. Debate between Alister McGrath and Peter Atkins

Comment #28901 by Shane McKee on March 31, 2007 at 2:23 pm

NMcC, agreed 100%, except I think that was in the debate with Atkins (the virgin birth thing). Atkins (rather brilliantly in my opinion ;-) said something along the lines of: "Ah, so you're saying that the bible trumps science?"

McGrath had no answer. But he's partially right - the virgin birth does point to something. It is just another indicator that the whole shebang is poppycock. There are many many more...

[What I'm getting at here is that there is no *reason* for any god with half a brain, never mind being omniscient, to choose such a silly framework as Christianity as his Plan A for saving mankind - the "miracles and wonders" make Christianity *less* plausible, not more. Add to that the fact that some "miracles" were not even miracles - the "curing" of the epileptic boy, the "raising" of Jairus's daughter - all just everyday events. Even resurrection was a bad move - resurrections were two a penny back then. Herod even thought that *Jesus* was John the Baptist resurrected; everyone else thought he was one of the prophets. Credulous times. McGrath is just adding his own name to Herod's on the Gullible List].

63. Debate between Alister McGrath and Peter Atkins

Comment #28890 by Shane McKee on March 31, 2007 at 1:44 pm

In fairness to Alister McGrath, he would have had *just* enough time to become a Christian after starting his primary BSc (if I'm reading the chronology right here), but only just. It is telling that one of the first things he did when starting Oxford was to join the Christian Union. This does not strike me as a very atheist thing to do; I wonder who influenced him in this, or whether he was indeed just a closet Christian throwing a strop with god?

I have to say, I don't have a major problem with the fella as a person; he seems reasonably nice and he probably thinks he's well-intentioned. But he has no argument; just sentiment. One area that is at least *interesting* is the origin of morality, but he (and any theist) has yet to come up with how that arises or is valid under a theistic model. A bit of careful explanation needed, Alister, me boy!

64. Debate between Alister McGrath and Peter Atkins

Comment #28869 by Shane McKee on March 31, 2007 at 12:06 pm

NMcC,

Ask, and it shall be given unto you; google and ye shall find ;-)

http://www.amazon.com/Christian-Catalyst-VIPS-Collection-Alister/dp/B000F6ZETQ
"Alister E. McGrath was born in Belfast, Northern Ireland, in 1953. He was raised a Christian, but by age thirteen hated Christianity and embraced Marxism. He joined the Oxford Inter-Collegiate Christian Union, and as a result became a Christian at the age of eighteen. He found that Christianity "really gives shape, direction and purpose to the rest of your life," and that "Christianity has enormous depth."

So, at age 13, it would have been 1966; age 18 at 1971.

http://www.theopedia.com/Alister_McGrath

Originally a student of science, in 1977 McGrath was awarded a PhD in Biochemistry from Oxford University. Following his conversion from atheism to Christianity, he studied divinity at St. John's College at Cambridge (1978-80).

So it's a bit misleading. He had been a Christian for at least 6 years before his PhD. 1977 is a long time ago in the Life Sciences (ask RD - The Selfish Gene was written in the same era ;-) and I would contend that 18 is a very tender age for one to have properly assessed the merits of atheism.

65. Atheists for Jesus

Comment #28807 by Shane McKee on March 31, 2007 at 3:12 am

Oh dear - the old fake trichotomy again - mad/bad/god. A couple of comments on this: firstly, it is extraordinarily insulting to anyone who has had mental illness, and is just a reinforcement of old Victorian stereotypes of the "insane". CS Lewis (for it was he) should have been ashamed of himself for coming up with it.

Secondly, it completely ignores the possibility that Jesus may have felt he was being called upon to do god's work in what he said, just like the zillions of religious people that inhabit our planet. I think it's safer to use the term delusion, like RD does.

Thirdly, there is the issue of Jesus being misreported. The Gospels are riddled with contradictions and non-sequiturs, yet one thing Jesus very explicitly did *not* do was go around proclaiming himself to be the messiah - other people tended to do that on his behalf (most notoriously Saul of Tarsus, the syncretist fanatic.

Fourthly, even if Jesus *did* claim to be "The Son Of God", it is not entirely clear (in fact it is extraordinarily unlikely, nay impossible) that he would have believed it to mean that he was "divine" - in fact, in several reported passages, he explicitly *denies* it. So *even if* he was the Jewish Messiah, there is no reason to make the daft leap into thinking that he was claiming divinity. And Messiahs (even resurrected ones) were two a penny back then. It's not Jesus' fault that his subsequent "followers" distorted not only his message and ethic, but his very person.

Jesus was Jewish, following in the tradition of the Galilean Hasid (read "Jesus the Jew" by Geza Vermes for further enlightenment on this). He was not the first to come up with his ideas, but they did seem to strike a chord. In fact, if anything (according to the bible) Jesus took the blasphemy challenge, and with the parable of the Good Samaritan made it very clear that *religion* is entirely unimportant; it is our ethic towards our fellow man/woman that is important.

Jesus needs rescued from Christians; whether that should be by Jews or atheists is an open question. To say that he was "a good person" is more than adequate.

Personally, I think that if Jesus had been around today, he would have been an atheist.

66. In the Beginning

Comment #28739 by Shane McKee on March 30, 2007 at 2:51 pm

[Minor excursus - apologies for it not being related to the original item].
Re: 1. Comment #28681 by NeoGothic

The bible was not written 4000-5000 years ago! Nor were the writers nomadic. Read "The Unauthorised Version" by Robin Lane Fox (as you are instructed to do in TGD ;-) for the low-down (VERY good book). The Old Testament was largely composed in 700-600BCE and thereafter, when the Assyrians and subsequent empires were kicking the kingdom of Judah around. If that's not good enough for you, read Donald Redford's "Egypt, Canaan and Israel in Ancient Times" for some corking anachronisms and revealing factors in the Pentateuch/Torah that locate it very firmly in C7BCE (and shed some light on ancient near eastern history too).

In any event, it patently ain't the word of god. The Pi thing is a distraction - there are far better reasons for believing the Bible to be the work of humans. Most Christians don't know their bible very well; when I was a Christian I read and studied it in very great detail, cross-checking all the references and correspondences, and checking the dependability of the various commentaries. *That* was why I became an atheist.

67. Stephen Hawking Says Universe Created from Nothing

Comment #28736 by Shane McKee on March 30, 2007 at 2:36 pm

I think Hawking's speech is pretty much similar to what he was saying in a Brief History of Time (all those years ago), and so far so good. But he doesn't go far enough.

If we play with the "universe as a mathematical abstraction" idea, then we can recognise that from the point of view of a glider zipping along the board in Conway's Game of Life is an inhabitant of *its* universe, which it will perceive as "real", and *we* will be the mathematical abstractions. Quantum mechanics/General relativity apply to *our* universe, but they need not apply to all (such as any of the Life universes).

People get *so* stressed out about this word "exist", as if there is something final and objective about it. We need to get over that. The universe only "exists" if you happen to be inside it; otherwise, it's just a complicated iterative equation. State and Operator. No computer required; no pixie required. [and pixies fall foul of the Ultimate 747 Gambit anyway]

The job of physics will be to find out the initial State and the Operator. It may take a while (good grief, that sounds optimistic!) In the meantime, even if this is currently unprovable, it consigns the First Cause argument firmly to the trash can.

But even if we had no answer to the First Cause Argument, why plug the gap with a pixie?? What a cop-out!

68. Stephen Hawking Says Universe Created from Nothing

Comment #28580 by Shane McKee on March 30, 2007 at 1:07 am

I agree re Penrose. Very smart dude, but all that quantum microtubule stuff is just silly. We "compute the incomputable" because we have zillions of neurons, massively interconnected. Quite how it all works and hangs together is not entirely clear, but we do know some of the details and general principles, which give us every reason to suppose that we are *not* dealing with the quantum here. Invoking microtubules (at this stage anyway) is like invoking the GOP (Great Omnipotent Pixie) to explain the universe - totally redundant.

69. Debate between Alister McGrath and Peter Atkins

Comment #28521 by Shane McKee on March 29, 2007 at 2:41 pm

I'm sure someone has mentioned this before, but Alister McGrath became a Christian at age 18, having been an "atheist" from age 13. So, rather than having been a *proper* atheist(!), all this chap has been is a mildly rebellious teenager.

Maybe he should style himself as a "former teenager" instead of "former atheist".

It's like taking a puff of one cigarette, and calling yourself a "former smoker" for the rest of your life. Pur-lease!! There is a difference between being a bit pissed off at a god you actually really do believe in, and not believing in it at all.

I'm just glad that he's lost his accent, and you can't tell he's from Northern Ireland any more.

70. Stephen Hawking Says Universe Created from Nothing

Comment #28517 by Shane McKee on March 29, 2007 at 2:28 pm

Yep, bring it on ;-)

(Indeed, apologies for the length of that last one - no, I'm talking about the *post*, not philandering).

I'm a whole-cubes man for my J&C.

Anyway, the next time some theist comes up to you and says that "everything that has a beginning has a cause", just point 'em in the direction of the Fibonacci sequence and the nearest pub...

71. Stephen Hawking Says Universe Created from Nothing

Comment #28510 by Shane McKee on March 29, 2007 at 1:56 pm

Hi Rtambree,

Oops, I think I was a little less than clear. The point is that you don't *need* a computer to do the simulating - all it does is allow us to access that universe.

Let's think of another "universe", where the initial State (State[0]) is the number 3. The Operator is 2*x.

So, State[t+1]=2*State[t]

Now, we hardly need a computer to tell us that the number 3 "exists", nor do we need a computer to realise the operator 2*x. That "universe" can be said to "exist" independently - albeit purely as a mathematical abstraction (from our viewpoint). We can program it into a computer if we want, and gain access to that universe. In changing any of the parameters (State or Operator), we are shifting to another "universe".

It's a bit like the "gene space" or "biomorph space" that Richard mentions in TSG, CMI & TBW. There is "maths space" which is the set of all possible equations and seed values (and subsequent values too, of course).

Well, if this is the case for "3" and "2*x", why should it not be the case for "12341456213624562456345" and "((x^34/x!)/2.35)e^7" - no reason at all. Or for any of the Life "universes" (which I am suggesting are *true* universes).

The point is that the computer itself is redundant - it is just a way for our universe to peek into another perfectly valid universe in "maths space", and see how it evolves. But the ones that we can view on our computers are very simple ones - many (most) are going to be Vastly Complicated, and probably won't result in any interesting substructures arising (like planets, life, and sentient beings).

All I am saying is that the Operator is probably very complicated (there is no reason for it to be *really* simple, other than the fact that the State at t+1 is quite similar, on a macroscopic scale anyway, to the State at t), and the seed value (which can be a multidimensional vector quantity, a real matrix or whatever) is probably pretty complex too.

But that's OK, because we don't need any external hosting system - from *our* viewpoint, it's all working itself out by itself.

Yeah, it makes my head hurt too, but although it's hard to grasp, it's entirely logical, and does away with any need for a First Cause.

If you think about it, the whole "First Cause" argument is "everything that has a beginning has a cause". This is obviously not the case for mathematical sequences, such as the Fibonacci sequence - it just has a State and an Operator. And away you go.

In fact, the more drunk I get (yes, I'm on the Jack Daniels and Coke tonight), the more sense it makes, and the more inevitable it seems. Cripes!

72. Stephen Hawking Says Universe Created from Nothing

Comment #28458 by Shane McKee on March 29, 2007 at 9:00 am

Getting from numbers to the universe? Easy! Right, think of this: if you set up a really big computer to simulate part of the universe (the part that includes your brain), and run it for a while, the simulated brain will experience a "universe" that is the construct within the computer.

This can be represented as an iterative mathematical equation: State[t+1]=Operator(State[t])

If you turn the computer off, what happens? Well, from *your* point of view, the brain has died. But what about from *its* point of view?

Consider you jot down the State on a piece of paper, then switch off the computer. Now, you work out the value of State[t+1] in your head, or using pencil and paper again. Do that for a few iterations. Now program that all back into the computer - the "virtual brain" will not notice that *anything* has changed. From *its* point of view, everything is funky.

Now think of this: the "virtual universe" is just a *number* - a mathematical state - acted upon by an iterative equation - pure mathematics. Yet *within* that system, there is a consciousness which perceives the whole state as being the sum total of its universe. Yet, from *its* perspective, the laws of physics that pertain to its universe etc all apply and work perfectly.

It might ask: "how did my universe pop into being?" Well, we could say that it's just a mathematical abstraction, and doesn't really "exist" in any *real* sense - but to the Virtual Brain, it *does* exist (and we have no contact with it).

From *our* viewpoint, did we "create" a number or an equation, or just "discover" them from mathematical "truth"?

Bottom line: from *outside* our universe, it is just a platonic mathematical abstraction. It doesn't "actually exist". We see it as existing simply because we're in it. There are infinite numbers of other universes that will differ in the original State[0] or in the Operator, but they all "exist" in that they are mathematical, and don't need a host system to realise them *from the point of view of any entities within them*.

Implications? There may actually be NO time zero for our universe - the "seed value" for our universe may be arbitrarily large (and "random"), and what we see as the consequences of the Big Bang are just the settling down of that original number, much like what happens when you seed Conway's Game of Life with a random board.

OK, it may be wrong, but it *is* an explanation for why there is Anything At All, and why the Goldilocks problem is not such a problem. All possible universes "exist", but unless you are *in* it, it's just a mathematical abstraction.

Sorry that's long-winded, but I'll try to trim it down for my Nobel speech (assuming that Hofstadter and Dennet don't beat me to it).

;-)

73. Richard Dawkins at The Sunday Times Oxford Literary Festival

Comment #28377 by Shane McKee on March 29, 2007 at 2:48 am

Alister McGrath is a "former atheist". He became an "atheist" at age 13, and became a Christian at age 18 as soon as he hit university.

Not Very Impressive, is it?

Bottom line is that this chap (a countryman of mine, I'm embarrassed to admit, although he has lost his accent) has no right to call himself a "former atheist", when all he is alluding to is a brief hissy-fit with god in his teens. A "15-minute atheist", as someone once called people like this.