Comments by Quine

51. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #236555 by Quine on August 24, 2008 at 7:21 pm

Comment #236407 by Shmeezers:

Oh, but I guess it is brilliant to just assume that chance was the author of the complexity of this world.

No, chance alone can't be the author of the complexity of this world. You have to also have a context in which partial solutions are passed forward in time so more successful chance variations will be cumulative. Take a look at this computer model of the emergence of complexity.

I just don't understand...

Don't let that stop you from trying to learn.

52. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #236141 by Quine on August 24, 2008 at 9:45 am

Comment #236114 by asyouwere:

Curious that this thread has morphed so many variations on the original topic.

After a couple of hundred comments, the threads can drift almost anywhere.

Anyway, if Jesus did exist, he must have had some nerve -- claiming to be the son of the god like that.

We do not know what he claimed. Those around at the time did not write things down as they happened. Jesus left no writings of his own. I often have wondered why YHWH was so second rate compared to the Egyptian gods who had things written on stone walls where we can read them today, in the original, no copies, no interpolations, no redactions and no questions of authenticity?

53. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #236104 by Quine on August 24, 2008 at 8:29 am

Yes, flying goose, I don't think the case for total "non-existence" is strong enough to be taken seriously. Of course, the case for supernatural existence calls for extraordinary evidence, which, is just not there.

54. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #236089 by Quine on August 24, 2008 at 7:32 am

Comment #235744 by apeman2:

I wonder when the next Alien ship will come and visit their Public Relations man "Richard Dawkins"

The public does not understand that when a scientist is asked for "other possibilities" it is obligatory to list things that the average person would consider so improbable as to be foolish to mention. However, the history of science has proven that we are more limited by what we are willing to consider than by what we can understand.

55. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #236087 by Quine on August 24, 2008 at 7:20 am

Comment #236040 by flying goose:

That the early Christians bent and manipulated prophecies from the Hebrew Scriptures around the life and death of an historical person who didn't quite fit them.

It went both ways. Also, remember that "early Christians" were several groups, each with different ideas about what "The Christ" represented.

56. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235850 by Quine on August 23, 2008 at 8:20 pm

Comment #235838 by Diacanu:

I actually threw that one at a christian once who thought that was a stupid argument.

No, it is not a stupid argument, and I will remember it in case I have a chance to use it myself. The story goes that Jesus appeared to Saul of Tarsus on the road to Damascus, transforming him into the apostle Paul (or, at least, getting him started), Saul, never having met Jesus during the conventional life of Jesus. However, Saul did, again according to the story, know about Jesus beforehand.

So why, having done it once, did the risen Jesus not also appear to the Emperor of Rome, right there in the palace court, backed up with a host of winged angels? The same goes for the Emperor of China, India, the Nordic tribes, the South American civilizations and all the others. He could have told them to change their evil ways and to send emissaries to Judea to learn all about it. Buuuuut nooooo.

I am currently reading Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium by Bart D. Ehrman, and in part of it he goes into an analysis of just how much of early Christianity could possibly have heard the word from original eye witnesses, based on the growth rates and geographic distribution. Basically, all but a tiny group got it second, third, forth, etc. hand, with the whisper game mutating the message all along (this was before the writings we have copies of today).

So, Diacanu, go ahead and make your "stupid" argument. It just means they have chucked it into the large bin of all the other arguments for which have not a clue of a valid answer.

57. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235834 by Quine on August 23, 2008 at 5:17 pm

Comment #235825 by Titania:

I let their comments about god go by because they are only 9 and 12 years of age and they are not my children.

I, also, follow this. However, I have let my extended family know that when the kids turn 16, the gloves come off, and the truth comes out.

A basic problem for NOMA is that the scientific method is based on self correction from the results of repeatable experiments, whereas faith derives from personal revelation, or belief in the words of those claiming such revelation. Objection to the state of the current scientific consensus is nothing against the requirement that children learn what science is about, and how to use the scientific method. After all, that is the way they can go on to use that knowledge to correct whatever they think is incorrect about the current consensus.

Suppose comparative religious studies became mandatory in schools. Some parents would object because the study of any other religion could be seen as against their rules. The school may respond by claiming that they are not teaching that any of the religions is necessarily true or false, just the facts about what people believe. Then an even larger group of parents may come back with "how dare you teach that our religion is not necessarily true!!" It is a no-win, and the take home lesson for science education is that science must, simply, be taught for its own sake, with no regard whatsoever for any nonfalsifiable ideas from any kind of "revelation."

58. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235812 by Quine on August 23, 2008 at 3:44 pm

Given that the Lennox article quotes Prof. Dawkins, and takes exception, it is just the kind that belongs on a thread here (I also suspect Lennox will read our comments). I suggest that regular readers do a quick refresher on logical fallacy, and then try to see how many can be found before it is posted.

59. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235805 by Quine on August 23, 2008 at 3:23 pm

8teist, just email articles@richarddawkins.net with the link. (see the about)

60. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235793 by Quine on August 23, 2008 at 2:55 pm

8teist, I assume you sent that John Lennox piece in to Josh, and we will see a thread on it any time. As usual, it is loaded with logical fallacy and will, having being ripped to shreds, be a good example of how not to try to make a reasoned argument.

61. More Americans Question Religion's Role in Politics

Comment #235748 by Quine on August 23, 2008 at 1:26 pm

It would be good news if it were the result of a desire for strengthening the separation of church and state, but I could not tell if they checked for how much was the desire for someone else's religion to stay out of politics. (As in, "someone from my religion is not speaking from faith, he or she is, after all, just speaking the truth.")

62. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235743 by Quine on August 23, 2008 at 1:06 pm

Comment #235695 by Tom G:

Also, greetings to everyone as this is my first comment on the site. I've been following many of the threads for some time and they're always very fascinating. I hope I can add to it.

Welcome, Tom.

63. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235325 by Quine on August 22, 2008 at 6:27 pm

Comment #235324 by J Mac:

In other words devotion would be much easier to fake if the faker actually believed it.

No question about that.

64. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235319 by Quine on August 22, 2008 at 6:14 pm

Comment #235047 by J Mac:

Women, more so than men, are concerned with their partners loyalty. So from a female perspective rejecting or even questioning faith in a god can be cause for concern. Men who passionately and devotedly follow their faith can be displaying characteristics which are attractive to women.

This is an interesting question. I am always checking for any cause that would provide gene selection for religious behavior in spite of any reasonable behavior, as in the peacock's tail. What I would wonder about the above, is if the devotion is needed, or just the appearance of devotion? Does hypocrisy have a built-in edge, or is it a wash against true belief?

65. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #234961 by Quine on August 22, 2008 at 9:59 am

Well stated.

66. Scientists Create Blood From Stem Cells

Comment #234030 by Quine on August 20, 2008 at 6:57 pm

Now, if they just sub in the gene for hemoglobin from bar-headed geese (which works three times better than human) you could get a transfusion and for about a week or so, be able to walk up Everest, no problem.

67. Pastor Rick's Test

Comment #233925 by Quine on August 20, 2008 at 3:17 pm

I'd much rather have seen a forum wherein the candidates discuss their views on scientific matters.

I fear that if there is a science based debate, the public will vote for the candidate who has the highest number of wrong answers.

68. Pastor Rick's Test

Comment #233767 by Quine on August 20, 2008 at 11:47 am

Very troubling.

"Is uniformity attainable? Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. " - Thomas Jefferson

69. Free Will vs. the Programmed Brain

Comment #233735 by Quine on August 20, 2008 at 11:04 am

Over the years I have noticed that if you probe deeply into what someone means by the term "free will" you will find that he or she does not really know. I don't.

70. Bill Maher on Religion

Comment #233455 by Quine on August 20, 2008 at 12:31 am

... we're out of a job.

Right on the nose.

71. Fleabytes

Comment #233255 by Quine on August 19, 2008 at 2:27 pm

Comment #233017 by David A Robertson:

..in what way could it be improved?

Three simple words, David: tell the truth.

72. Critical Analysis of Case for a Creator

Comment #232007 by Quine on August 17, 2008 at 12:20 pm

Some portion of the population will take this as the zenith of scientific whiz-bang, unfortunately.

73. Do subatomic particles have free will?

Comment #231958 by Quine on August 17, 2008 at 11:11 am

Anyone have a view on how the recent work of measurement by partial disturbance and reversal of disturbance would impact the "proof" in the above? It sounds to me as if Conway and Kochen are depending on non reversible measurement.

74. Unintelligent Design

Comment #231943 by Quine on August 17, 2008 at 10:52 am

Comment #231889 by J Mac:

I couldn't even read this article, was it any good? I read the first several lines, and while I think I agree with where it's going I could have no response other than "DUH, did this need to be written?"

I find it very well written. IMHO, yes, it needed to be written because it is accessible by people who have not studied all these separate areas that converge to make the case.

75. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #231140 by Quine on August 15, 2008 at 9:46 pm

Comment #231139 by txpiper:

I still need to post a few whale notes and answer Quine's question as well.

I am still interested in your answer.

76. The rebellion of the child-brides

Comment #230205 by Quine on August 14, 2008 at 12:28 pm

Comment #230196 by cerad:

Would it hurt us to try and be just a little bit tolerant of other cultures?

Yes, it would hurt. As a father of a daughter, I have no tolerance for this.

77. God's Warriors

Comment #230197 by Quine on August 14, 2008 at 12:20 pm

I watched it last year, here in the USA. Its main value was to present other world views to a population that is generally clueless. Nothing much to write home about, but a starting step, none the less.

78. Poll: Should the motto 'In God We Trust' be removed from U.S. currency?

Comment #230192 by Quine on August 14, 2008 at 12:11 pm

quine-

Beacha to it. ;)

oops, so you did.

Perhaps we could make the thing more relevant to today's life by adding "; others must pay cash."

79. Poll: Should the motto 'In God We Trust' be removed from U.S. currency?

Comment #230184 by Quine on August 14, 2008 at 12:02 pm

Historical reasons?? The historical reason was the red scare of the 1950s. Is that the kind of patriotic history we want to accentuate?

80. We need to stop being such cowards about Islam

Comment #230171 by Quine on August 14, 2008 at 11:47 am

Re the original article:

Comment #230092 by mordacious1:

Good morning all, took me awhile to catch up on this thread. WOW.

Me too.

Comment #229718 by Peter_on_Sax:

I see that the book "The Jewel of Medina" is listed on Amazon.

The book is not yet available, but you can pre-order it. Perhaps a full order book will encourage publication.

Seems like one of the very best ways to take individual action.

Comment #230099 by Donald:

This site was set up with the stated purpose of being a clear-thinking oasis. How many of the comments on this thread qualify? I wish those people who posted banter and flames on this thread could read this thread through and consider what the effect on a newly-arrived reader would be. Would this thread be a good advertisement for clear thinking? A good advertisement for rationalism? A good advertisement for evidence-based reasoning? A good place to find links to useful web resources to fight against religious nonsense and oppression? Some threads are, or have been. Is this thread useful in that way?

Thank you.

81. Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #227635 by Quine on August 10, 2008 at 12:04 pm

Comment #227630 by Diacanu:

If that's what Robertson is speaking, then God's got a mouthfull of dogshit.

Well, for Collins that would be DNA, and yes, the instructions in DNA did produce that mouthfull.

82. Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #227615 by Quine on August 10, 2008 at 11:34 am

Last year I, also, got The Language of God from the library. I liked it until it hit the frozen waterfall, then it went straight down the logical drain. However, I still recommend it to religious people I meet because it can help get them over the first obstacle in understanding that evolution is a fact (that obstacle being actually sitting through reading a book). If it achieves that, then there is a next step to seeing that religion is mythology, but if you can't get them to be open to evolution, you can't get started.

83. Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #227574 by Quine on August 10, 2008 at 10:11 am

clearthinker, evil??

84. Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #227388 by Quine on August 9, 2008 at 7:36 pm

clearthinker, if you accept the fact of evolution, then there was no "Garden of Eden", talking serpent, Adam and Eve, etc., therefore no "Fall." Without a "Fall" there is no redemption sacrifice to fulfill. How do you reconcile this?

While you are at it, where did evil come from?

85. Father, son and holy toast

Comment #226903 by Quine on August 8, 2008 at 9:37 pm

Comment #226893 by Laurie Fraser:

So droll, Quine.

Better droll than troll; that's what I think.

86. Father, son and holy toast

Comment #226890 by Quine on August 8, 2008 at 8:51 pm

Does this pan violate the Millennium Copyright Act when used? Does the heat level matter? I guess, if you can't manage transubstantiation, transmogrification will have to do.

87. Bill Maher hates your (fill in the blank) religion

Comment #226885 by Quine on August 8, 2008 at 8:39 pm

Comment #226798 by macros_man:

However - to be fair and honest and "take the high road", I think that after the release, the movie's creators should provide the FULL UNEDITED INTERVIEWS freely available on the internet - and even post a disclaimer at the beginning of the movie indicating that some editing and deception took place

Good idea.

88. Camp Offers Training Ground For Little Skeptics

Comment #226847 by Quine on August 8, 2008 at 6:56 pm

Comment #226734 by Edouard Pernod:

... so is it abusive to tell children that they are inherently bad and can only be rescued from their badness if they believe in a fantasy.

89. Richard Dawkins, the naive professor

Comment #225923 by Quine on August 7, 2008 at 1:59 pm

Richard, I was surprised you pitched it that way; now I understand why it did not sound like you. Perhaps next time you should say it the way you think is best, and later the lawyers can think of a disclaimer text to run under you, that most will not read, anyway.

_____________________________________________
Richard Dawkins finds no evidence to believe in: Agdistis, Ah Puch, Ahura Mazda, Alberich, Amaterasu, An, Anat, Andvari, Angdistis, Anshar, Anu, Aphrodite, Apollo, Apsu, Ares, Artemis, Asclepius, Athena, Athirat, Athtart, Atlas, Baal, Ba Xian, Bacchus, Balder, Bast, Bellona, Bergelmir, Bes, Bixia Yuanjin, Bragi, Brahma ...

90. Richard Dawkins, the naive professor

Comment #225844 by Quine on August 7, 2008 at 12:32 pm

Mango, I am not fighting you.

Comment #225833 by Mango:

We cannot show anything is bogus, which is why the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a useful figure to lampoon what some people take seriously.

Well, I hold that we can show that any religion you pick teaches things that are not true, and thus, in my view, is bogus.

91. Richard Dawkins, the naive professor

Comment #225827 by Quine on August 7, 2008 at 12:13 pm

Comment #225818 by Mango:

... and even Dr. Dawkins himself admits he is technically an agnostic (as we all must be, if we choose to remain scientific)

We need not be "agnostic" re any given description of a deity that we can show is bogus. There will always be the possibility that a deity created the world specifically to look as if no deity exists. The idea of "technically agnostic" is a difference that makes no difference.

92. Richard Dawkins, the naive professor

Comment #225811 by Quine on August 7, 2008 at 11:53 am

There is a clear choice between evolution and "goddidit." RD has simply restated, for the n'th time, that the latter cannot be the case.

93. Is our universe fine-tuned for life?

Comment #225566 by Quine on August 7, 2008 at 2:39 am

See my blog post from earlier.

94. Local Idiot To Post Comment On Internet

Comment #225564 by Quine on August 7, 2008 at 2:31 am

Having been here, a while, I have seen enough without The Onion holding this subject up to the mirror.

95. The Emptiness of Theology

Comment #223980 by Quine on August 3, 2008 at 9:19 pm

Comment #223941 by fizhburn:

Side note: as a sometime metaphysician, I can assure Quine that his namesake probably did more to rescue metaphysics from positivism than anyone, and the subject is---for better or worse---still quite healthy

Just remember that limitations in positivism do not automatically translate to anything good for metaphysics. That would be a false dichotomy. Even if you know that truths exist that are not reachable by empirical evidence, metaphysics cannot be relied upon to tell you what those truths really are (i.e. the answer to the question, not just that there is the question). Quantum science has shown us that we have to be very careful about what realms our 'normal' logic can reliably cover. What if there is a metaphysical "double slit experiment" in which we think our metaphysical reasoning tells us some (untestable) truth. How would we know if we had, or had not, stepped into another of those 'different' logic realms?

96. The Emptiness of Theology

Comment #223932 by Quine on August 3, 2008 at 6:36 pm

J Mac, first, I will grant that what goes on under the name of theology at 'Bible Colleges' need not be considered. Now, that theology assumes the conclusion, was certainly the case in the time of Anselm of Canterbury, and that standard was preserved, universally, for many centuries. I am sure that the influence of philosophers starting at The Enlightenment has changed this in many institutions. You may have personal experience of this, so I would look to you for it, but when do you think this changed for the majority?

Theology has no more failures of logic than any other form of meta-physics.

Which is why meta-physics is limited to speculation (and some say is a dead subject).

Other fields of study work on unproven premises as well. Evolution is often foolishly faulted by creationists as not explaining the "origin of life." To which the only reasonable response is that evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, but rather the diversification of life, or the origin of species.

The origin of life was a separate question. Only recently have we had workable ideas of abiogenesis, none of which yet have significant evidence. None of this stop evolutionists from studying evolution.

You do understand the difference between an "unproven premise" and an "unfalsifiable premise," don't you?

In theology there are groups that can study the implications of the existence of god apart from those that study whether or not god exist. Both are certainly important topics in theology.

Speculation about unfalsifiable premises is important when writing a novel so the reader is not pushed out of the envelope of believability.^[ref]

Each argument has a conclusion, the field does not.

If only ... Yes, it is true that someone in a theology department can stand up and make a proper argument of ontology which does not start from the conclusion, but that argument is the actual foundation business (ontology in general) of the philosophy department.

"God does not exist" could be, and has been, the conclusion of some theological arguments.

Would you think that they assumed that conclusion before starting?

The "Department for the Study of Something that Doesn't Exist"? I think I would rather go down the hall to the "Department of Being Hit Over the Head Lessons."

Religious studies generally refers to something along the lines of comparative religions. It is a means of studying what some people believe. It teaches ABOUT the customs and traditions, and maybe just maybe ABOUT the arguments for and against any given deity.

Yes, that is what I would like.

The "art" of constructing such arguments IS the field of theology.

It is refreshing to hear someone admit it, for a change, instead of the usual claim of actually knowing something about the supernatural.

Any philosopher worth their salt should also know that forcing oneself to construct a reasonable argument for something they don't believe, or against something they do believe, is a very valuable exercise. Both as a means to challenge ones own perceptions, and as a means of sharpening one's logical teeth.

Agreed! That is why any philosopher worth his/her salt is in the philosophy department.

Of course your last point (tic-tac-toe) is right on the mark.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Wandering in a vast forest at night, I have only a faint light to guide me. A stranger appears and says to me: 'My friend, you should blow out your candle in order to find your way more clearly.' This stranger is a theologian." - Denis Diderot

97. The Emptiness of Theology

Comment #223903 by Quine on August 3, 2008 at 4:36 pm

J Mac, I agree with almost all of what you have posted. I know other theologists who came to Atheism through their study.

My position is that the department is called "theology" for historical reasons, but should be called something like "religious studies." Yes, it came from philosophy, but theology, as such, assumes its own conclusion at the start (that is what separates it from philosophy), which is a classic failure of logic before it even gets going.

98. The Emptiness of Theology

Comment #223894 by Quine on August 3, 2008 at 4:05 pm

So, J Mac, is it your position that any argument against the content of the study does not necessarily apply to the validity of the study?

99. The Emptiness of Theology

Comment #223878 by Quine on August 3, 2008 at 3:23 pm

J Mac, do you think the FSM should be included in the current theology class coverage?

100. The Emptiness of Theology

Comment #223875 by Quine on August 3, 2008 at 3:14 pm

But, if you already have a department that studies mythology, why would a theology department add anything?