951. Why Richard Dawkins is right on alternative medicine - but not when it comes to religion

Comment #62487 by Richard Morgan on August 10, 2007 at 1:12 am

I almost envy Dominic Lawson his good fortune in living in a world where "religion has been forced to become little other than an assembly of ethical opinions."
And I feel it is a clumsy misrepresentation of RD's motivation to suggest that it can be summed up by:

Their refusal to countenance Darwin is, I suspect, what has so enraged Dawkins, an evolutionary biologist by specialisation.

I have the very strong impression that what so enrages Richard Dawkinis has a lot more to do with fanatics aiming planes at sky-scrapers than with silly ideas concerning a subject particularly dear to his heart.
Reading this article gives me the impression that Dominic Lawson is a real nice guy, but he doesn't seem to live in the same world as we agitating atheists.

952. The Gullible Age: Review of 'The Enemies of Reason'

Comment #62041 by Richard Morgan on August 8, 2007 at 2:21 am

…it's equally unscientific to dismiss it without investigating its specific claims

I would like to give a piece of fatherly advice to hungarianelephant and others of his ilk who wish to take part in (relatively) serious forum discussions : "Do your homework before opening your (virtual) mouth."
There is a considerable amount of literature on homeopathic medicine and tests. But perhaps not all of it is available on the Internet, and perhaps some documents are not in English. Ever thought about that?
hungarianelephant reminds me of so many of my 11/12 year-old pupils who quite seriously believe "If you can't Google it, then it doesn't exist."
To which I always reply : "The fact that you can Google it does not prove that it does exist."

Surely the simple contradictory fact that millions of dollars are made by over-the-counter sales of homeopathic remedies, whereas homeopathic treatment is supposed to be based on a thorough knowledge of the "whole" patient by the prescribing practitioner (if we are to believe the inventor of homeopathy, Hahnemann) should be enough to demonstrate the fraud going on here.

I agree that all health carers would be more efficient if they had the time and/or the inclination to include more T.L.C. in their approach. Unfortunately TLC is not as effective in actually saving people's lives as traditional medicine, so it will clearly remain a very secondary aspect of health care. Although it could have an important role to play in the after-sales service department of clinics and hospitals.

hungarianelephant announces himself as a "lawyer of sorts", which perhaps explains his reasoning "of sorts" and superficial skimming of information. Yeah, I like a good laugh, but some subjects are just too darn important to be dismissed in an "…of sorts" way. Would he like his plane to be piloted by a "pilot…of sorts"? Or be operated on by a "surgeon…of sorts"?
(You guessed right, Veronique, I'm getting angry again. Don't worry - I'm doing the deep breathing again…. IN……..out……..IN………out…….. er, what comes next? Oh, yes : IN……….OUT………IN………OUT. There, I'm feeling better now. I'll have to see if my doctor has a treatment for my allergy to crass idiots.)

953. The Gullible Age: Review of 'The Enemies of Reason'

Comment #61836 by Richard Morgan on August 7, 2007 at 4:53 am

I would expect to see the pharmaceutical + homeopathic consultation group do better, whether or not they also receive a homeopathic remedy. But I strongly suspect that these groups will also do significantly better than the comparable groups with no homeopathic consultation.
If that is the result, it will have profound implications for the way we practice medicine. And perhaps that helps to explain the reluctance to do it.

Good reasoning for an elephant (Hungarian or Welsh or whatever) but stupid silliness from a supposedly reasonable human being.

Because there is anecdotal evidence as well as good reason to suppose that the extended consultation brings its own benefits.

Yeah, well, RD already said that, and I already commented on that aspect of the problem.

(Where are you in my hour of need, Veronique, some of these guys are almost causing me to lose my legendary sang froid???)

954. The Gullible Age: Review of 'The Enemies of Reason'

Comment #61482 by Richard Morgan on August 5, 2007 at 10:26 am

discipline:

We secularists need to pick our battles and this new direction just dilutes our efforts.

Dilutes? Or strengthens?

Dilution is usually the result of a futile dispersion of efforts. This is clearly NOT the case here!
New Age lies and illusions harm people, millions of people.Not as dramatically as planes crashing into multi-storey buildings in New York, of course. Not with the same tele-visual psychosis of a divinely-guided state leader, granted. But anything that gets in the way of reason, in any kind of undertaking, sooner or later harms people. Kills people. Poisons societies, handicaps generations. And lots of other very unpleasant things.
So Richard's decision to take on New Age quackery is a perfectly logical development of all his previous and present campaigning.

Vive la vérité!

955. The Gullible Age: Review of 'The Enemies of Reason'

Comment #61412 by Richard Morgan on August 5, 2007 at 4:53 am

The fact that homeopathic doctors and patients do claim there is a benefit he puts down to the human body's power to restore itself when given the psychological boost of someone else's concentrated concern and attention: the average half hour to an hour, rather than the typical eight-minute NHS GP consultation.

Yep.
That says it all.
How can I be so sure?
Well, I spent years studying most of the solutions on offer for overcoming all the various difficulties that people experience when faced with the arduous task of "living".
From psycho-analysis to Primal Scream therapy.
From NLP to hypnotic previous-life regression therapy.
From astrology to numerology.
From shamanism to transcendental meditation.
I've met clairvoyants, spiritual healers, channellers, Reiki-ers and exorcists.
I've looked into evangelical Christianity and Ananda Marga.
I've been exposed to the healing power of crystals, trees, purgatives and positive thinking.
And guess what? They ALL work. To a certain degree. They all have their miracle success stories.
And many years ago I realised that they all have one thing in common :

the human body's power to restore itself when given the psychological boost of someone else's concentrated concern.

"All you need is love!!!"
I'm looking forward to RD's programmes, but I'm not very optimistic about their overall impact on human gullibility.
Let me end with a sad little anecdote.
Way back, when I was still living in the UK, I had a friend who eked out a humble living as a free-lance journalist, selling mainly to those bastions of the British intelligentsia such as The News of the World, The People and , occasionally the Manchester Evening News. He specialised in "exposing" frauds in all sorts of areas - health, religion, pyramid sales etc.
One time he exposed a con-artist who was selling a miracle cure for baldness. Very expensive bottles of magic lotion which contained nothing but perfumed water. So, the scam as exposed. And that was the end of the story.
Well, not quite. A few weeks later my friend was contacted by the would-be saviour of the world's baldies : "Do you think you could expose me again, please? Business has never been better!"
When I was thirteen, a "medium" gave me a message from my grand father on "the other side of the veil". A very touching message. More so, since at the time all four of my grandparents were alive and well.
The medium was still in business twenty years later.
I must give him credit for one thing, though : today I am sixty-one, and yes, my grandparents are dead. Or on the other side of the veil.
The poor guy must have misinterpreted a premonition. Oh well, happens all the time…

956. The Out Campaign

Comment #59828 by Richard Morgan on July 30, 2007 at 6:57 pm

I live in France, where declaring one's atheism doesn't interest anyone. Being opposed to the right to go on strike certainly attracts a lot of hostile reactions, but "not believing" something is just a non-subject for most (if not all) French people.
So, having announced that bit of good luck, like others, I would really like to know how I could help my trans-atlantic friends for whom being an overt atheist causes so many frightful problems. I'd really like to help and encourager y'all - but how?

Send me a personal message if you want, and let's chat about it.

957. Don't eat at the Outback Steakhouse on Route 3...

Comment #59567 by Richard Morgan on July 29, 2007 at 4:55 pm

Alovrin said:

I thought Richard Morgan was having a go at humour, rather badly. But is he serious? He's joking right? He can't be serious.

You're absolutely right - I was having a go at humour, not rather badly, but very badly. Sorry about that.

I used to be a card-carrying born-again believer. I've been a happy atheist now for around ten years. But THEY really do tend to reason in the way I (badly) tried to parody. Which is to say, they don't reason at all.Often it makes me very cross. Sometimes it saddens me. But usually, these days, I've come to the point of, like, "What the hell, there's nothing new, they weren't listening before, they're not listening now, perhaps they never will."

958. Why I Believe Anti-Evangelism Is Wrong

Comment #58178 by Richard Morgan on July 23, 2007 at 9:57 pm

How ever did this article find its way into this forum? Its utter silliness does not merit any sort of attention or comment.
(Before moving on, may I just offer my heart-felt sympathy to anyone unfortunate enough to have to live with this guy. Must be pure hell at the breakfast table!)
Can someone tell me why so many apparently intelligent people (well, intelligent enough to participate in this discussion) feel the need to respond to such bull-shit?
In writing this comment, I'm not expressing my concern over Tyrone's tantrums, but rather the fact that we are giving him the attention he is clearly seeking.
So here's my question to my fellow commentators : Why have you taken the time and trouble to sink to this guy's level by trying to reply to him?
There are so many other interesting, informed, refreshing, stimulating and thought-provoking articles elsewhere that are really worth a good discussion, it's a little sad to see people wasting their time on this one.

"I don't know what cognitive dissonance is, but trying to think about it makes me feel uneasy."

PS The best comment is certainly pewkatchoo's :

What a git!

And even that is a little over-verbose.

959. Atheists: stand up and be counted

Comment #50534 by Richard Morgan on June 18, 2007 at 3:51 pm

MIRI:
Many years ago, during my personal Dark Ages when I was a mormon, there was considerable concern in the church at a certain time with the problems of reverence (or lack of) during the service. Usually harassed mothers unable to control masses of lively toddlers who saw no interest in being reverently silent.
People in charge were reluctant to adress the problem openly for fear ofoffending the noise-makers.
Then the directive came down from on high : "Don't worry about offending those who are irreverent during the service, because they have already offended everybody else by their lack of reverence."
In other words : "Go get the noisy sods!"
Yeah. Why not?
I mean, we don't actually slit the throats of theists do we?
Do we?
Well, I don't.
Also, it's important to be precise in our use of language : we can't offend "beliefs", we can only offend people. There's an important difference.

960. I Don't Believe in Atheists

Comment #44581 by Richard Morgan on May 25, 2007 at 5:03 am

I love music. It is almost vitally important to me.

Music is:

The art of arranging sounds in time so as to produce a continuous, unified, and evocative composition, as through melody, harmony, rhythm, and timbre.

Music is:

Vocal or instrumental sounds possessing a degree of melody, harmony, or rhythm.

Music is:

An aesthetically pleasing or harmonious sound or combination of sounds.

Music is:

an artistic form of auditory communication incorporating instrumental or vocal tones in a structured and continuous manner.

Music is:

My reason for living when all else seems so black and bleak.

Friedrich Nietzsche:

Without music, life would be a mistake.

Shakespeare:

Twelfth Night, I:1
If music be the food of love, play on.

Aldous Huxley:

After silence that which comes nearest to expressing the inexpressible is music.

Plato:

Music is the movement of sound to reach the soul for the education of its virtue.

And music IS so much more.
I can affirm all that quite happily without evoking the mystery of the Trinity, whilst accepting the notion that "music" is a human concept, and WITHOUT feeling that I am shitting on the rules of logic or mis-using the English language (which I do elsewhere, Veronique)
Yes, for me too, Hedges' piece was a breath of fresh air.
I'm still an atheist , but frankly I'd prefer to live in a universe peopled by Hedges and his likes rather than the cranky, nasty-minded, self-important nitwits that pass their time in these columns.
I'm not addressing that remark to everyone, but so often, after having read the comments here, I need to go and play a Chopin Nocturne or a Mozart Sonata in order to bring back a feeling of light (mixed metaphors? What the heck...) into my heart/soul/neurones.

961. The Conversion of the Casual Evolutionist - You can't spell love without evolve

Comment #44265 by Richard Morgan on May 24, 2007 at 12:23 am

Many years ago, when I was a trainee neurotic, I had a good friend who was a psychotherapist.
One day, we were kicking a football around on his lawn, and when he had scored his umpteenth goal against me, I justified my vulnerability by saying, "It's easy to score againt me, as a hopeless neurotic my defence systems aren't working properly."
He came over to where I was lying on the grass, sobbing gently into the ground,and he playfully kicked me in the face and walked on my testicles, and came out with this memorable sentence (memorable because I can remember it, dummy!): " For fuck's sake, Richard, it isn't always therapy! Sometimes it's just fucking life!"

Yeah!
Now, thirty years later, I am a fully qualified, card-carrying neurotic but I can still say: "For fuck's sake, it isn't always evolution! Sometimes it's just fucking life!"

Reductionism is great for the Borneo head-shrinkers and Weight-watchers. But you can be sure that Richard Dawkins doesn't go around spotting evolution in every shop window, in every roll of fair-trade recycled toilet paper, or in the Hitch-hiker's Guide to Creatonist Stupidity.

Most of the time it's just life, chum.
Linda realised that before you did.
Because she was genetically programmed to do so.





errr...




Oh, shit.....

962. Would the World Be Safer Without Religion?

Comment #43538 by Richard Morgan on May 22, 2007 at 12:42 am

The other day while on the stair,
I met a man who wasn't there;
He wasn't there again today!
Oh, how I wish he'd go away!

Personal message to The Wee Flea : Do you want me to send on your copy of Dale Carnegie's -How to Win Friends and Influence people? And can I give your curling tongs to the WVS now? They're getting a bit rusty.


Talking about Winston Churchill, his remark about grammar rules was, in fact, (concerning prepositions) : "This is a rule up with which I will not put."

lol!

963. Would the World Be Safer Without Religion?

Comment #43486 by Richard Morgan on May 21, 2007 at 5:41 pm

Help me! Somebody, anybody, (though Veronique would be a good choice) help me! This is almost driving me crazy!
Why does reading theist arguments and worse, theist replies, remind me of my ex-wife? Unless, of course, "The Wee Flea" is in fact my ex-wife. Yes, that must be it. She's getting back at me through the columns of a debate. I recognise her style.

She : Why haven't you hung out the washing to dry?

Me : Well, the washing machine hasn't stopped yet.

She : I know it hasn't stopped. It's got at least another fifteen minutes to go. Do you think I don't know that? Are you implying that I'm stupid?

Me : But you asked me why I hadn't hung out the washing yet, and I was just explaining...

She : You're always "just explaining". I'm fed up with your explanations. Just answer the question : are you implying that I'm stupid?

Me : Well, I thought you wanted to know why I hadn't hung the....

She : There you go again, changing the subject. If you were a real man.....

Me : ......Yeah, I know. I'd have wrenched the door off the machine while it was spin drying, risking life and limb in order to hang out the washing....

She : You sarcastic bastard, I don't know why I have to put up with all that.



And I see The Wee Flea warming up to use the same basic approach:
I said: Religion has largely fiizzled out in Europe... (nb - "largely)

The Wee Flea replies :Firstly religion has not fizzled out in Europe ...

Now if I tried to remind him/her : "I didn't say it had completely fizzled out, don't misquote me!"
he/she would come back with "So you admit that it hasn't in fact fizzled out."
and that could go on for a very long time.
So, in the event of my having correctly identified The Wee Flea, let me just say to her: " I told you so! You stopped your psycho-analysis too soon."




I don't want to sound unfair, but why is it that it is nearly always (I said "nearly" - I hope you noticed that, TWF!) theists who play silly, smart-ass word games. Somehow, it's rather sad....

964. Would the World Be Safer Without Religion?

Comment #43296 by Richard Morgan on May 21, 2007 at 4:32 am

To find more stupid articles than this, you'd have to turn to Creationist science books.
Other commentators have picked up on most of the rubbish written here, but what about:

Europeans seem to be aware of the bloodshed that faith has cost in the past--...--and to be saying, "To hell with it."

Wrong. Crassly wrong. Religion has largely fizzled out in Europe because it has been replaced by reason. Gregg Easterbrook may know the word "Enlightenment".
But there's more:

Would the world be better off if religion disappeared?
Some people would say yes, and since it's impossible to conduct this experiment, as faith is definitely not going away, we can't be sure.

So he quotes a part of the world where faith is rapidly disappearing, and we find that Europe has been relatively peaceful since World war II. So why talk about "impossible experiments"?
(I live in "faithless France" - the country that refused to murder Iraqi women and children to protect American oil-interests. Why am I not ashamed?)

Also, I want to make a point here that I've been wanting to make for a long time. Obviously, with or without religion(s) people would have problems with living together on this poor ol' planet of ours. But I would like to imagine that whatever the cause for ignorance and violence, rape and genocide, there would be the equivalent of a Sam Harris, a Richard Dawkins or even a Christopher Hitchens to rise up against, to noisily protest and denounce it. WHATEVER the cause.
I am quite sure that if ever atheism were used as an excuse to slaughter people, Richard Dawkins would protest just as vociferously, if not more so, because he happens to be a reasonable man, and would never tolerate so-called "reason" being used in this way.
It's been said before, but I'll say it again : at least ignoramus writers like Gregg Easterbrook are, unwittingly, doing a good job preparing the ground for reason.

965. How dare you call me a fundamentalist

Comment #40756 by Richard Morgan on May 14, 2007 at 10:45 pm

There was 9/11. And then there was Iraq - still is, in fact.

I see real fundamentalists enagaged in mutual destruction. Because they must - according to their fundamentally opposed beliefs.

If, one day, scientists start killing each other because they disagree about what (if anything) happened before the Big Bang, then I will start to worry about "fundamentalist scientists or "evangelical rationalists."

The other day, one of my children bonked another one on the head with my copy of TGD which was lying handy. So, yes, I have seen Dawkins used in a violent way.
I suspect this was an isolated incident....

Apparently, according to psycho-analysts, a person's choice of pseudo can be quite revealing. Don't you agree, "The Wee Flea"?

966. French Muslim women opt for hymen surgical cons

Comment #40227 by Richard Morgan on May 13, 2007 at 11:24 pm

Russell Blackford:

Give me a sexually experienced woman who knows what she's doing any day.

Give you.....?
Err...OK.
Where do you want her delivered?

967. French Muslim women opt for hymen surgical cons

Comment #39837 by Richard Morgan on May 12, 2007 at 4:40 am

Oh dear. Oh deary me.
Haven't any of you guys read Richard Dawkins' other books? Like his stuff on that much ignored subject - "evolution"?
Now, I'm not an expert, but I can see the evolutionary "advantages" for a species where the male is attracted to (apparently) healthy young females, probably capable of being inseminated, giving birth to, and suckling those "enveloppes charnelles" that will have the responsability of being home to his genes.
Also nature is full of ingenious examples where the male has "discovered" methods for preventing "his" female being inseminated by other males. And I would have thought that insisting on virginity is just another of those evolutionary tricks.
Non?
Talking about Cosmopolitan on a Richard Dawkins site is rather missing the point. Or perhaps not - from somebody for whom being "invisible" is a happy state.

968. French Muslim women opt for hymen surgical cons

Comment #39797 by Richard Morgan on May 12, 2007 at 12:50 am

Apparently some western women also resort to surgery to give people (men?) the impression that they have large breasts.And others have the skin on their faces stretched to con people into believing that they are younger than their real age.
Hymens, breasts, buttocks, tummies, noses, eye-lids.....are all these surgical manipulations the result of monotheistic religions?
Don't laugh - perhaps they are, somewhere along the line.
But evolutionary forces are also at work there. Think about it.

969. Atheist offers to send letters post-Rapture

Comment #39078 by Richard Morgan on May 10, 2007 at 12:16 am

My wife has just started learning English, and knows very little about Christian end-times fairy-tales, so when I told her about "post-Rapture" whatever she said that after having experienced "rapture" all she wanted to do was have a cuddle and go to sleep, and she most certainly didn't want to start receiving letters from the more frustrated members of her family.

I guess I'm going to have to work on that one...

970. Richard Dawkins in the Time 100

Comment #37503 by Richard Morgan on May 4, 2007 at 4:38 pm

Interesting bit of hypocrisy here -this article is Behe being......well, lukewarm!

And ID is a way for seething fundamentalists to appear...well, lukewarm.

Check out your Bible (on-line) to see what Jesus intends to do with the "lukewarm".

You don't want to waste your time? OK - here it is: the lukewarm will be spewed out of his mouth.
(Rev. 3:15-16).

So I guess the Westboro Baptist Church and Richard Dawkins are safe from ending up in the divine vomitorium.

In fact, there is only one criterion for usefully judging Behe's article: will it make more people by TGD? If so, Behe can be as delusional as he wants, I'll just thank him warmly, then stand back quickly in order not to get caught up in apocalyptic disgestive tube problems.

971. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #36706 by Richard Morgan on May 2, 2007 at 3:57 am

How sad and senseless all of this.

972. 'The Day They Kicked God out of the Schools' & Rebuttal

Comment #34344 by Richard Morgan on April 23, 2007 at 8:36 pm

(1) Would anyone happen to have a contact address or phone number for the « they » in the title of the first clip? Because if "they" can do that, I'd be open to them giving me some practical suggestions for kicking God out of a few other places.

(2) My heart goes out to all those suffering inconsolable loss as a result of the V.T. shooting.





(1) and (2) are not related in any way.

973. Answers To the Atheists

Comment #30398 by Richard Morgan on April 8, 2007 at 1:57 am

Have you noticed that it's always cherry-pickin' time in Theistland?

As for me...

Each to his own, huh?
Reminds me of a question I asked during my first months in France in 1984, when I was curious about everything.

"How many political parties are there in France?"

The guy added a drop of water to his Ricard, stirred it with his finger, which he then licked with gallic relish, looked me in the eye, winked, and said: "How many political parties in France? At least 50 million, mon ami. Santé!"

So, guys, let's just let them continue dividing their own house.

"As for me and my house..." Hang on!
Haven't I heard that before somewhere?
Darn it!

974. Is this another Sokal Hoax?

Comment #28989 by Richard Morgan on April 1, 2007 at 4:50 am

Shall I fetch your coat?

975. John Paul Sainthood Nun 'Gentle, Simple'

Comment #28575 by Richard Morgan on March 29, 2007 at 11:28 pm

What on earth is the point of publishing this kind of "news" here, of all places? This is just "Business as usual" for the Catholic Church.
I'd be more interested in reading about some atheist miracles.
Here's one to set the ball rolling:
In 2001, after having devoutly NOT prayed for several years, I was miraculously NOT in the vicinity of the AZF factory in Toulouse when it exploded. According to initial studies (though this needs to be verified) a large number of other people (atheists all) were not there either.
Duh.....

976. Atheist banned from committee on religious education

Comment #27948 by Richard Morgan on March 27, 2007 at 11:28 am

JUSTME - Thank you for your remarks which have taught me a lot.

This question of concealing identities could become even more important for us if we decide to take Priapus's advice:

Perhaps it is time to adopt a more dexterous and Machiavellian approach to these matters.

I had thought about trying to get admitted on religious policy-deciding committees as a sort of "infiltrating the enemy" strategy.

Immoral? Apparently not because my Bible tells me that I may need to be "as wily as a fox".
Oh shit, I've given the game away. I confess, I'm a fundie triple agent. But I do truly believe that I don't believe in....
Who's banging on the toilet door?
I'll be out in a minute.
Anybody fancy going out for a pint?

977. Peanut Butter, The Atheist's Nightmare!

Comment #27885 by Richard Morgan on March 27, 2007 at 5:54 am

As a one-time "believer" I was sad to be wrenched away from the comforting promises of religion by the cold hard truth of reality.
But the following year, for my tenth birthday my parents gave me a microscope with a "Discovery Kit", and I've never looked back.
But think how much easier it is to relinquish beliefs that tell you to look for proofs in a jar of (man-made) peanut butter! These guys are making atheism easier, not more difficult!

I've heard some of you describing this kind of film presentation as "shooting oneself in the foot".
As a football fan, I prefer to call them "own goals". Does everybody, both sides of the Atlantic, understand that?
I have invited the whole family, grandchildren included, to watch the Chuck Missler number.
You guys don't know how lucky you are - we only had Rowan'n'Martin, Benny Hill and Charlie Drake. With all these fundies around, you need never have a dull evening again!

978. Are You Right Eyed Or Left Eyed?

Comment #27847 by Richard Morgan on March 27, 2007 at 3:35 am

One day, I hope to find myself on the right hand of God..... if he's got one left.
What?
Not funny?
(OK, Reg, could you pass me my coat as well, please, we'll go down the local, and sup some of that fine brew, right down the middle!

979. Peanut Butter, The Atheist's Nightmare!

Comment #27842 by Richard Morgan on March 27, 2007 at 3:07 am

Oh my Gawd!!

I just opened a jar of peanut butter and found Chuck Missler inside.

Does this qualify for being called "new life" since it is apparently brain-dead?

(Note : he tasted rotten in my sandwich in spite of the strawberry jelly and honey that I added.)

980. Atheist banned from committee on religious education

Comment #27809 by Richard Morgan on March 26, 2007 at 9:47 pm

#27790 by justme : When you say

Finally, using real names opens up the chance that stalkers, abusive individuals, or even job discrimination can occur. This is a real personal concern to me since I have to go through security clearances on a regular basis, and the people doing those reviews may not live up to the ideals of the profession when they do my review. It only takes one, and it is very hard to protest a bad or rejected investigation

...All I can reply is :
OK, Jack, I can appreciate, understand and respect that.
Excuse me for shooting my mouth off like that, but, living in a country where one's being an atheist is of no interest to anyone, I do tend to forget that this is not the case elsewhere.
Clearly, the fact that you need to conceal your identity in this way is a very powerful argument for the need for books like TGD!

981. Atheist banned from committee on religious education

Comment #27576 by Richard Morgan on March 25, 2007 at 11:18 am

My name is Richard MORGAN.

Henceforth I have to decided that I will read and reply to comments by people like;
Russell Blackford.
And ignore the various "Yorkers", "Catchy_nicks" and "justmes".
Why would one need to hide behind a pseudonym on this site?
What are you ashamed of, or frightened of, Zigster and BaronOchs?

982. Atheist banned from committee on religious education

Comment #27561 by Richard Morgan on March 25, 2007 at 9:35 am

Russell Blackford - I have come to expect more sensible stuff from you!

Ah, the stupidity. The people who are most likely to be able to offer something sensible about how religion should be taught are those who are able to look at religion from the outside rather than from inside some religion or other.

Obviously!!
You know that.
I know that.
But you're still missing the point of this whole debate!

It is naïve to imagine that an atheist should be admitted onto a committee that decides policy for Religious Education. Unless atheism is a religion.
I live in a country (France) where "religions" are part of the programme "Histoire/Géographie" at school, since religious behaviour and attitudes have always had an significant impact on the history of human societies.

Discussions of a "religious" nature are forbidden by law in French classrooms, more particularly since the Law passed in 1905 separating the State and the Church.

One of the consequences of this law was to create a society in which atheism has become absolutely banal.

Another beautiful example of what has been called "le paradoxe français" is a statistic recently published by the highly respectable Le Monde in their monthly magazine "Le Monde des religions" :

Fifty per cent of the population declare themselves "Catholic", and fifty per cent of these Catholics are self-declared atheists!!!

That's what you call "free-thinking"!!

But the 1905 Law recognised that affairs of State and religious affairs are separate questions. A similar law in the UK would put an end to this silly question about how religions should be taught in State schools.

The shameful policy of encouraging faith-based schools in the UK is, clearly, another subject, for a different discussion.

983. Atheist banned from committee on religious education

Comment #27505 by Richard Morgan on March 25, 2007 at 4:04 am

Ohnai - you say that "Humanism and Atheism are not 'religion' per se."
That's like saying "Not playing chess is not a hobby per se". Are you sure you understand the meaning of the expression "per se"?
Because the rest of what you say is ansolutely correct, for example:

If you force humanism into RE classes then you best be willing to admit CS in to the science class room.

Alas, others, particularly Yorker, are completely missing my point. I have worked with adolescents for over thirty years. I have a very high opinion of them, and all that they represent.
I suspect that Yorker, like an increasing number of people these days, gleans too much of his information from the Web, rather from real life.

984. Atheist banned from committee on religious education

Comment #27409 by Richard Morgan on March 24, 2007 at 12:47 pm

Maybe this site should set up a special section for youngsters where it could be pointed out that those who back religion want to teach religion because it gives them control over the minds of young people.

What do others think?

Waste of time, chum. Could even be counter-productive. For many adolescents, anything that comes from adults is there to be rejected. Y'know what I mean?

"the natural rebelliousness of young people" needs to be just that.
Natural.
And according the figures quoted, young people seem to be doing quite well without needing websites to help them along.

985. Atheist banned from committee on religious education

Comment #27388 by Richard Morgan on March 24, 2007 at 10:45 am

I'm as atheist as the rest of you (if there are degrees of atheism....!) but it does seem rather strange that Andrew Edmondson should wish to participate on a committee that discusses how religion is taught in schools. It's rather like a teetotaller wishing to have a say on how wines and spirits are sold, or a vegetarian sitting on the Butchers' Committee.

I suppose that if he were admitted, his opinion on how religion should be taught to children would be limited to one word : "Not."

I am opposed to capital punishment in all cases, without exception. I will not be asking to be heard in a discussion on the comparative merits of the lethal injection as opposed to the electric chair.

986. Your Mom Was Wrong: Horseplay Is An Important Part Of Development

Comment #26592 by Richard Morgan on March 20, 2007 at 4:42 pm

Well, yes.

Of course!

I'm a teacher, and I have been in contact with rowdy teenagers for over thirty years. And not only is it clear that "playground roughhousing " is normal adolescent behaviour, many researchers have already concluded that it is an important part of development. Not surprisingly, the most interesting explicative theories come from evolutionary psychologists.


So what's new, doc?

This is a case where our poor little rodent friends could have been left in peace, it seems to me.

But, talking about dominant male rats, we've got presidential elections coming up in France soon.
A bon entendeur.....

987. An apology to Peter Kay

Comment #25070 by Richard Morgan on March 10, 2007 at 2:09 am

What are the evolutionary advantages for a journalist, or a species of journalists, to behave in such a way?
The answer is in one of Richard's favourite expressions : that's how he earns his living!

It is clear that your apology is more than just an apology, it's what your life's work is about - giving the truth its rightful place.

988. She's No Fundamentalist: What people get wrong about Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

Comment #24700 by Richard Morgan on March 8, 2007 at 5:40 am

Hey, Scot, 24697, slow down.
You're getting your knickers in a twist over nothing because you are not using clear language.For example, what happens if we change "the right to life" to "the right to live"? You'll find it changes many things. Does the man who is about to slit your throat have the absolute right to life/live at that precise moment in time?

Unfortunately you're going to have to leave absolutism to religious who have an absolute god. Absolutely.
For us scepticals (Brights? hehe), situationism can (and does) rear it's nasty little head just about everywhere.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali states her case very clearly,and is leagues away from ethereal philosophical debates.
A little girl having her clitoris hacked off with a rusty old knife is, perhaps, relatively unconcerned about the absolute right to practice the religion of one's choice.
Sorry, Scot, but you "absolutely should" read a few books on philosophy before commenting again.
But comment again, by all means.

989. Religion and Politics

Comment #24273 by Richard Morgan on March 5, 2007 at 4:01 pm

Since we are on Richard Dawkins' web-site, let us not forget that Mormons believe that God evolved from something less complex – a man! That solves one of our problems with the existence of God, doesn't it?

It doesn't?

Well, I just thought I'd mention it….

990. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #24031 by Richard Morgan on March 4, 2007 at 11:32 am

"It doesn't matter what they say about you as long as they spell your name right."

Does this ring a bell?

991. The Dawkins Confusion: Naturalism ad absurdum

Comment #23650 by Richard Morgan on March 2, 2007 at 12:39 am

The only thing interesting (but not very) about the "fine-tuning" theme is the fact that the human brain itself is designed to perceive phenomena such as fine tuning.

Fifteen years ago, the registration number of my car started with "3850". This was also the pin-code for my credit card!!! People found this amazing, what a coincidence, etc and the question that always came up was, "What are the chances against having the same number for your car AND your confidential pin code?"

Lats month, I announced to these same friends: "Wow! What an incredible coincidence. My pin-code is 5266 and my registration number starts with 6914! The chances of my having these two numbers at the same time are incredibly......"

You see what I mean.

Just think of all those other universes that are fine-tuned NOT to have life (and therefore not to have three-toed sloths,slugs and me.) Clearly a divine plan to limit the number of...me's?

992. Research links some scriptures to hostile acts

Comment #23647 by Richard Morgan on March 2, 2007 at 12:21 am

What a waste of time!

For centuries we have seen the effects that scriptures have had on people's behaviour!

Now I want Bushman and Ridge to conduct another study, perhaps measuring the effects of reading passages about peace and love. Or the beneficial effects of kindly giving your daughters away for a gang-rape session in the name of shrewd hospitality.
Or perhaps even more fun would be to have the volunteers just read passages about father-daughter incest. But keep the straight-jackets handy, guys!

993. Faith

Comment #23083 by Richard Morgan on February 26, 2007 at 7:12 am

Fouad Boussetta said:
"A little note of interest about the French:
1/3 atheists, 1/3 agnostics, 1/3 believers. Good allies maybe."

Not quite, my fine Canadian friend. The most recent statistics ("Le Monde" - des Réligions, February 2007) are rather more interesting than that:

50% of French people claim to be Catholic; 50% of these Catholics claim to be atheists.

Now THAT is what is interesting about the French!
Vive la différence!

994. Faith

Comment #23082 by Richard Morgan on February 26, 2007 at 7:05 am

Janus requests:
"I'd love to see a negative article on Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, or militant atheism in general that doesn't resort to lies, strawmen, and misrepresentations."

Here's a start.

Richard Dawkins is younger, more intelligent, better-educated, better-looking, sexier, more famous, healthier and wealthier than I am. He also has a younger wife and a huge plasma TV screen.

No lies there, but it's all pretty negative as far as I'm concerned.
Do I need any more reasons to hate him? Good grounds for getting born again, I'd say!

Over to you, Janus.

Oh - I was forgetting - my wife informs me that rumour has it that his wife agrees with him on most subjects. This could be a likely candidate for a lie, but I'd need to see the evidence first. (Just because my wife said that, doesn't automatically make it an Argument from Ignorance. Does it?)

995. Atheists come in last

Comment #22900 by Richard Morgan on February 24, 2007 at 12:50 am

I'm wondering if the pollsters ensured that the people being questioned actually KNEW what an atheist is.
A short while after the the US invaded Irak, a team of reporters from French television visited a small rural community in deepest Texas to try to find out what the attitude of ordinary folk was towards their President's foreign policy.

The journalists had a hard time finding someone who even knew where Irak was! One lady confidently announced that Irak was the capital of Iran!!!
But all those questioned unquestioningly supported their President.

I know that Gallup have an excellent reputation for the quality of their polls, sampling techniques etc. But for the lady who situated Irak in place of Teheran, would she have known precisely what she was being asked about when confronted with the choice of voting for an atheist?

Reminds me of the old joke:

What's the difference between a post-box and an elephant's *ss?
I don't know.
OK, I'll post the mail today.

996. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #22745 by Richard Morgan on February 21, 2007 at 4:53 pm

Oh dear, Sam - you saw that the other guy did not have a tennis racket, but you continued your Ace service all the same.
You should have quit the tennis court, Sam. There is no game going on.
When you say - "I think you and I have a responsibility to see whether a conversation of this sort can ever terminate in a proper meeting of minds," I get the uneasy feeling that you are not being completely honest.
Are you sure that your endeavours to prolong the debate are completely free of any mischievous urge to let Andrew make himself look even sillier with each reply? I would love you to be able to answer "Yes" with your hand on your heart.
I'm sure Andrew is a really nice guy. Which makes this whole debate even sadder, because he clearly cannot see how alarmingly he is misusing language.
Please Sam, stop bullying. Even if it is polite bullying. Even if you remove your hat and say "Excuse me" before kicking Andrew when he is down.
In French we have an expression : "A l'impossible, nul n'est tenu." Nobody is expected to do the impossible." As in a "proper meeting of minds".

997. Memo: Stop teaching evolution

Comment #22562 by Richard Morgan on February 19, 2007 at 6:29 pm

This is another Argument in favour of the Existence of God. It's called "The Cringe argument by Embarrassment."
If what I claim is false, it would be embarrassingly false. Since I do not choose to be humiliated, I cannot believe anything that would be embarrassing.
Thus Creationism is the true explanation and God exists.
(And you won't find THAT one in the TGD. Naah!!!)

998. God, sex, drugs and politics

Comment #22558 by Richard Morgan on February 19, 2007 at 3:13 pm

Is this what can be called "doing the right thing for the wrong reasons"?
Or is this discrimininating against compulsive masturbators? Why should "phantom wankers" finance promiscuous sex?

The fact that this debate can exist at all is almost despairingly obscene.

God bless America. Whenever he decides to spring into existence...

999. Foreword for the UK edition of 'Letter to a Christian Nation'

Comment #22383 by Richard Morgan on February 15, 2007 at 9:28 pm

My children have no interest in reading either TGD or "Letter to..."
This I interpret as a clear sign of the importance and effectiveness of authors such as Russell, Sagan, Dennett, Dawkins and Harris. Why?
Because my children are second generation "atheists". Their father read all the books.
They don't know what the fuss is all about. They don't even really know that they are atheists!
Admittedly, they are growing up in France, a country where organising a good strike is much more important than worrying about God, And making a donation to Médecins Sans Frontières is a more spontaneous reaction than praying for peace in the world.
Do others out there, not living in the USA have similar stories to tell?
Mr Dawkins, Mr Harris, when there is a whole new, generation unable to understand all the hype over your books, then you will have the proof of the success of your efforts.
In the automobile industry, I believe it's called "built-in obsolescence" or something like that.

"Atheism is a belief system the way not crossing my fingers is a superstition."

1000. The questions science cannot answer

Comment #21610 by Richard Morgan on February 10, 2007 at 5:37 am

"The questions science cannot answer."
...that science does not ask. But theists both ask and answer these questions. And sometimes these answers justify horrifying crimes.
Please, let us never forget that TGD has more than a tenuous link with the events of 9/11.
Harbouring a delusion is one thing, acting out on it is another.
Richard Dawkins doesn't spend all his time saying it, since for most of us it us glaringly obvious, but the base issue is Life.
Alas these pages are tending to become an almost narcissistic free-for-all punch-up. (Let those who have ears, hear!)
McGrath's attitude will always leave the door open to delusional behaviour. Psychiatrists have several names for that.
Reason and science anchor our ideas and actions in reality.
Sure Richard can appear supercilious, aggressive, scornful.....whatever. But I can forgive him that, as I can forgive his being more intelligent, better-educated, better-looking, wealthier and sexier than me, because behind it all there is so much more than just a driving intellectual honesty.
He wants people to stop killing each other.
He is as concerned with life and the quality of life as any Gandhi or Mother Thérésa. His style is different, his language different, his manner...well, his manner is what it is.
But history will show that TGD (without forgetting Harris and Dennett) will have a more civilising effect on the human race than any Bible.
So many letters in these columns, like this article, look more like intellectual masturbation than the expression of a desire to improve the quality of life.
Sad, since there are so many more ways to be dead than to be alive. (Recognise that?)