Comments by Corylus

1001. Does God Exist? The Nightline Face-Off

Comment #39800 by Corylus on May 12, 2007 at 1:01 am

Hi, I'm Kirk Cameron and my partner and I Ray Comfort come to you tonight...

I knew it, I knew it! I watched that banana video and that's exactly what I said. Nice to see them admit it: hope you're happy guys :)

Seriously though, re Veronique's point about this 'I used to be an atheist line' I suspect that this is not aimed at convincing atheists instead it is adressed more to the undecided. The 'floating voters' if you will.

Imagine someone who previously hasn't given the issue much thought, who is then presented, with educated people using lots of long words debating God (I am thinking more of McGrath than C&C here!). Arrh... how am I ever to make sense of this they say?

Then through the gloom they hear someone say 'I used to be an atheist, but not any more'. Hurray! Here's a smart person who has considered both sides of the issue and has made up their mind: I'll go with that one.

Unfortunately, this ignores the following possibilities:

a) They were never an atheist and they are lying.
b) They thought they were being atheists when really they just had 'angry with God' phase. Not realising, of course, that one cannot be angry with what does not exist.
c)They took on atheism as part and parcel of another belief system (i.e. Marxism) and when they rejected that they thought, erroneously, that atheism had to go too.

Others can probably come up with other possibilities here.

Overall all, whenever I hear the "I used to be an atheist line" I translate it into "I've done your thinking for you, f*!@wit, so you don't have to bother."

1002. World's most prominent atheist takes on the Biblical God (and other topics)

Comment #39412 by Corylus on May 10, 2007 at 2:41 pm

Question: Was that woman wearing a wig/hairpiece??

Interesting discussion on deathbed statements though, but sadly missed out the following:-

Most optimistic –

"I think I could eat one of Bellamy's veal pies"
William Pitt

or maybe

I've never felt better.
Douglas Fairbanks, Sr.

But the overall funniest (and my personal favourite)

Either that wallpaper goes, or I do.
Oscar Wilde.

Maybe some of these are urban myths, but they all please me!

1003. Cardinal: homosexuality a form of prostitution

Comment #39107 by Corylus on May 10, 2007 at 2:37 am

Someone posted this link in a separate thread: I just have to repost it here as a response to this.

http://www.cafepress.com/buy/atheist/-/pv_design_details/pg_1/id_16225116/opt_/fpt_/c_360/

I'd happily buy the Cardinal one of these.

1004. God . . . in other words

Comment #39105 by Corylus on May 10, 2007 at 2:20 am

No Bizarro

This is not atypical of Dawkins: you just haven't been listening.

I would strongly advise his book "Unweaving the Rainbow" which was incidentally published in 1998, way before the whole God Delusion furore.

It talks about the role of science and its 'appetite for wonder'. It is actually my favourite book of his, probably because of its discussion of poetry. I'm a complete hippy and I love poems.

I doubt you will find it in the library at Liberty, but Amazon delivers parcels in opaque brown cardboard just for situations like this. Read it under the covers if you must: you can always tell your roommate its porn :)

Go on… I'm only asking you to read a book, not sell your soul.

1005. Better God-fearing than sneering

Comment #38722 by Corylus on May 9, 2007 at 3:40 am

Tintern noted that

A favourite of Catholic priests was a prohibition on dancing.

I couldn't help but think of the following…

Why do Methodists disapprove of sex? Because it could so easily lead to dancing.
Thomas Keneally.

1006. Better God-fearing than sneering

Comment #38697 by Corylus on May 9, 2007 at 1:52 am

Sigh. Yet another caring-sharing, happy-clappy effort from the Guardian.

What is the old parlimentary term used to describe being attacked by the ineffectual.. ah yes.. "like being ravaged by a dead sheep."

Perhaps I am being unfair here, maybe this is the Guardian version of a fatwa?

1007. The New Atheists loathe religion far too much to plausibly challenge it

Comment #38243 by Corylus on May 7, 2007 at 10:00 am

Luthien

Thanks for the Koran link :)

I have finished the 'good stuff' and am working my way through the rest... drinking already!

1008. Atheists go on the political offensive in God-fearing US

Comment #38203 by Corylus on May 7, 2007 at 8:06 am

Bizarro

Re your gastric discomfort… I think you may have a touch of Sartrean nausea coming on.

I recall you saying on a separate thread that you were studying philosophy as well as biology. (That's cool, don't let anyone tell you that it's a waste of time).

Why don't you give old JP a try??

1009. Unholy row at clergy soccer game

Comment #38192 by Corylus on May 7, 2007 at 7:42 am

Now if the objection was that caring a toss about who kicks a ball where is totally irrational I would have listened, but no!

Oh dear, I fear I may get into trouble for that one ;)

1010. The New Atheists loathe religion far too much to plausibly challenge it

Comment #38188 by Corylus on May 7, 2007 at 7:31 am

I don't understand. How can you "loathe something far too much to plausibly challenge it?"

Did Pankhurst loathe sexual inequality too much to plausibly challenge it? Did Gandhi loathe British rule too much to plausibly challenge it? Did Mandela loathe apartheid too much to plausibly challenge it?

I could go on, but you get my point… Is the only legitimate form of protest that which is 'phlegmatic'?

I agree though that atheists need to gain understanding. I became one not by reading TGD (sorry RD!) but by reading the bible. I think it should be much more widely read, and not just the sanitized passages that one is directed to. I also have the Koran in my 'to read' pile, but I admit I haven't worked up the guts to wade through it yet. Every quote I have read from it depresses me and I fear it will be more of the same. Maybe I should take a leaf out of Hitchens book and do it on Dutch courage? Even if that does mean that I will be damned to hell before I start :)

Overall, there is evidence that this journalist has actually read the books she is talking about, (and I give her credit for that) but I wonder, has she actually read the books about which they talk?

1011. Richard Dawkins in the Time 100

Comment #37141 by Corylus on May 3, 2007 at 1:03 pm

Pedants Corner: So for Michael Behe eye colour is not meaningful... fine, but at least the magazine's illustrator could have got it right...

1012. The Damned

Comment #37061 by Corylus on May 3, 2007 at 10:03 am

Well, and there was me thinking 'kaffir' was an ingredient in thai curry! Learn something new everyday... :)

1013. Now Muslims Get Their Own Laws In Britian

Comment #36876 by Corylus on May 2, 2007 at 3:31 pm

I find it extremely interesting that this article makes two references to the building being used for this court as being a 'former pub'. This alone makes me wonder about the aims of the writer of this article.

I know that patriotism is an illogical position and I am trying hard to put it aside, however, speaking as a Brit who has travelled, I have a huge fondness and love for the British public house. IMHO they are some of the best places in the world to be. You can talk to people if you wish about anything you choose… Or you can sit in the corner with a drink, a book, and a ploughman's lunch and no one will have the bad manners to bother you. I am justifiably proud of these places. I am also extremely proud of the fact that as a woman I can (as long as I show a bit of common sense concerning the town and the area I am in) go into them without fear of being harassed.

To draw notice to a pub being used for "strange, foreign purposes" seems to me to be asking for (either knowingly or unknowingly) a knee-jerk BNP type of response. Dammit!! They are messing with our pubs… Whatever next??

This is not a paper I read, and I believe this aspect of this article demonstrates why.

That said though, I really loathe the notion of sharia courts and law. As a libertarian I cannot stop people settling their disputes in their own way. However, as a pragmatist I agree with Russell that the best and fairest way to stop this sort of idiocy is to hit these organisations where it hurts… in the pocket. Stop their tax breaks and spend the revenue accrued on useful initiatives like teaching immigrant women English so they are aware of the legal redress and equality available to them under British secular law.

B*llocks to the 'these places help women' argument: not falling for it! This rag aside, changing pubs into sharia courts is a step backwards not forwards.

1014. New Noah's Ark ready to sail

Comment #35811 by Corylus on April 28, 2007 at 11:56 pm

I'm sometimes accused of being overly cynical, and I admit that this is a character flaw of mine, but I'm wondering... is this guy charging for admission? Maybe a donation to cover "costs"?

1015. God Is in the Dendrites

Comment #35500 by Corylus on April 27, 2007 at 11:37 am

Hmm,

"When Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion, put on the hood, it only made him a little dizzy"

I would be intrigued to see what would happen to Sam Harris...

1016. The God disunion: there is a place for faith in science, insists Winston

Comment #34843 by Corylus on April 25, 2007 at 12:33 pm

Well, I must agree with others on here that (especially in certain countries) it takes guts to take issue with the Bible and/or the Koran.

However…

Comment 34709 by Koldito

.. since when does the Bible (or the Quran, or the Talmud, or...) qualify as "serious"? They are about as serious as Lord of the Rings, and about as much as pain in the ass to read.

I must also note that (in some circles anyway) it also takes guts to insult 'The Lord of the Rings'

Sir/Madam, may I be the first to salute your courage!

1017. The God disunion: there is a place for faith in science, insists Winston

Comment #34708 by Corylus on April 25, 2007 at 1:22 am

Sigh, this is dreadfully depressing. Robert Winston is a very clever man, his work on fertility has changed many peoples lives for he better. He is a real champion for healthcare in general.

Apparently he and Dawkins are friends, I do hope this is not evidence of a serious spat.

I think we need to bear in mind that the newspaper 'The Guardian' appears to have a real downer on Dawkins. To the extent that they actually appear to s**tstir.

I am not going to comment on Winston until I am really sure that these quotes from him are in context.

1018. Vote for the Time 100 - Are They Worthy?

Comment #34694 by Corylus on April 25, 2007 at 12:18 am

Interesting list. I was feeling a bit ashamed of myself for not knowing some of them, but maybe that's a good thing.

At the moment I see RD is squeezed in between Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt. Smile, RD! There are lots of people that would pay a great deal of money for that ;)

Sorry... lowering the tone!

1019. The Video: Bill O'Reilly Interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #34393 by Corylus on April 24, 2007 at 12:22 am

I do think that this was useful in that Bill tends gloat when people refuse to appear on his program...the 'Come and have a go if you think you are hard enough' argument. Richard proved that he was not scared of the man: proving this point was worth the appearance.

I did like the line on moustaches as well...wait a minute though, What about Nietzsche? He had a magnificent one. It's true!! It's all about facial hair.. arhh.

1020. One Hell of a Religious Read

Comment #34387 by Corylus on April 23, 2007 at 11:56 pm

Yep, I have got to concur with others on here, I am intrigued but withholding judgement..

Must say though that the selection of picture of him with a cigarette in his mouth (presumably to show what a bad boy he is) irritated me no end.

NO, children, it's not big and it's not clever! ;)

1021. 'The Day They Kicked God out of the Schools' & Rebuttal

Comment #34212 by Corylus on April 23, 2007 at 2:10 pm

Good answer Kroger.

I do think though that we should all ignore Bizarro on this. For those that do not know him of old he is a student of Lynchburg University (yes of the Falwell fame).

One can see him in full technocolour glory on the following link (he put some questions to Dawkins at the Q and A session at the end):

http://richarddawkins.net/article,303,Reading-of-The-God-Delusion-in-Lynchburg-VA,Richard-Dawkins--C-SPAN2

RD made him look a brainless idiot and he has been stalking this site ever since.

I did feel sorry for him as he is not stupid and obviously has a promising brain. Aha, I thought, indoctrinated by Falwell, cut him some slack. Unfortunately, he appears to have graduated to the full self-satisfied, self-righteous smugness of his mentor. Sometimes there is no hope. Enough said.

BTW: I have just noticed on the afa video that this piece of tosh is 'available for purchase' Why?? Two possibilities:

1) So one can enjoy it in the privacy of one's own home, glorifying in the sense of one's own moral rectitude... possibly with a box of tissues close to hand?

or

2) To show to children.

Frankly, I do not know which scenario I find more disturbing.

P.S. If anyone wants to accuse me of being crass and unfair to Bizarro, fine. But, please, first look at his comments on this site. The child is not kind.

1022. 'The Day They Kicked God out of the Schools' & Rebuttal

Comment #34155 by Corylus on April 23, 2007 at 11:41 am

Brian
You know what this means? You are now a director :)

Well done, I wouldn't have the first clue how to put that together.

1023. Atheists split on how to not believe

Comment #33984 by Corylus on April 23, 2007 at 12:56 am

Have to agree with others here that PZ's response to 'soft' atheists is a good read.

BTW: The 'aim to misbehave' title is a quote from the film 'Serenity' which is alot of fun and well worth watching. As is the original 'Firefly' series... sorry... geek moment :)

1024. NEXT MONDAY: Bill O'Reilly interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #33667 by Corylus on April 21, 2007 at 2:25 am

Please, please, Josh when the interview is done can you take Bill's mugshot off the website STRAIGHT AWAY!

It's making me feel somewhat queasy....

Cheers :)

1025. Flea Circus!

Comment #32997 by Corylus on April 19, 2007 at 1:15 am

Poor Dan Dennett - he must be feeling so left out :(

Come on theologians: take on the atheist Dumbledore if you dare!

Russell - loved your titles.

1026. Sam's Flea!

Comment #32667 by Corylus on April 18, 2007 at 1:00 am

Anyone going to be getting a copy? I admit curiosity but I'm hesitant to spend money on it for fear it is just the usual tripe.

I really understand where you are coming from here - you want to be intellectually fair and read before you criticise, but you do not want to put money in these people's pockets...

N.B. British readers might like to know that WHSmith has a big '3 books for the price of 2' promotion on at the moment and 'The Dawkins Delusion' is one of those books featured ;-)

It may be that this cuts down on all author's profits or maybe the retailer covers the costs?? I don't know, but I must admit getting this book for 'free' the other day gave me an inordinate amount of pleasure.

1027. Atheism isn't the final word

Comment #32383 by Corylus on April 17, 2007 at 1:27 am

Good letter Veronique!

1028. Atheism isn't the final word

Comment #32362 by Corylus on April 17, 2007 at 12:24 am

"What would a world with God look like?" Umm.. pretty much like this one actually.

I agree with Spinoza here, these people would do well to read some philosophy.

This brings me to another point. I am noticing when these people list the so called "atheist tracts" they have a tendency to miss out dear old Dennett.

Is it because they do not bother to read him? Possible. Or is it a tactical decision because he is harder to misrepresent? I have my suspicions.

1029. Against God

Comment #32083 by Corylus on April 15, 2007 at 2:12 pm

Cheshire Cat

If you has been paying attention to Fonex's posts you would know that s/he goes to church because s/he lives in country and within a family environment in which no choice is given. You might wish to remember that not all contributors here have the have the luck to be posting from the UK, or are old enough and affluent enough to be able to change their environment.

This brings me to another point.

I asked you a question recently, but it appears that the thread has died on that article and you did not see it. Therefore, I ask again…

You're obviously well read. Your posts are sometimes funny and couched in technically correct English grammar. You don't believe in God, but you do seem to go for the whole 'belief in belief' deal – i.e. liking nice churches and well meaning believers. You know your bible, your theologians and your John Donne, and you read the Telegraph. Plus you do occasionally come across (I'm sure unintentionally!) as a tad pompous and now your recent fury over 'anti-clericalism'…

I am not being mean or sarcastic here, but I really have to ask.

Are you an Anglican vicar?? Maybe trained to be one and became disillusioned?? Please: share!

Frankly, I am beginning to find your posts incomprehensible and I really want to understand.

Thank you.

1030. Thanks for the Facts. Now Sell Them.

Comment #31955 by Corylus on April 15, 2007 at 3:36 am

Hmm, two possible criticisms of this article spring to mind. Ones that maybe not everyone here will with agree with, but I'll put them forward anyway.

Anti-American?
I agree, Johan, I find myself wondering what the writers of this article really think about the vast majority of the American public. For example:

The fact remains: The public cannot be expected to differentiate between his advocacy of evolution and his atheism.

In other words the American public are inherently stupid….

Scientists have traditionally communicated with the rest of us by inundating the public with facts; but data dumps often don't work. People generally make up their minds by studying more subtle, less rational factors.

Completely irrational and incapable of weighing up and assessing sometimes conflicting evidence…

In 2000 Americans didn't pore over explanations of President Bush's policies; they asked whether he was the kind of guy they wanted to have a beer with.

Parochial….

…even as business leaders can speak to fiscally oriented conservatives about the economic opportunities there for the plucking if Congress passes a system for trading carbon dioxide emission credits.

Only interested in policies because they increase their income rather than because they actually help people, in other words…. completely venal.

This article seems for fall for every mistaken, pernicious, invidious stereotype about Americans going, and was yet apparently written by Americans. If a European had written this there would be screams from the rooftops.

Elitist?
The more responses of this type in the, supposedly, left-wing media I see the more darkly suspicious I become. (I am thinking mainly here in relation to the recent Guardian articles against Dawkins: the average Guardian reader wouldn't know proper left-wing if it bit them on the rear end.)

There appears to be continued criticism for Dawkins et al, not in terms the factual validity of their position, but instead, criticism of the people they address and the manner in which they address them.

There is a sly sotto voce aside to people like Dawkins, "Yes, old chap, we know you're right, but don't tell the masses: they will only get upset and misunderstand". When these people are ignored; as they should be; accusations of 'populism' and 'dumbing-down' abound.

I am beginning to suspect that a great deal of this type of criticism has little to do with religion and a lot to do with intellectual snobbery. When people attempt to educate others outside of a school or college environment they assume that education of the general public is worthwhile, that people without academic or journalistic jobs are not inherently stupid.

It may actually be that some people with menial jobs are just as smart as some members of the middle-class intelligensia. Also, (and much more terrifyingly!) it may be some members of the middle-class intelligensia may be just as dumb as those with menial jobs. No wonder Dawkins and PZ attract such hostility when they consider such possibilities as these.

Now, I do not want to come across as a simplistic, idealistic pinko here. Of course, people progress in life because of being clever and, of course some people are just smarter than others. What I do say that there are a lot of clever people in the world who have not progressed not because of lack of intelligence, but because of lack of opportunity and lack of access to education.

I think it is amazing when people like Dawkins and PZ make an effort to teach things. I firmly believe that education reaps rewards and that humans as a group can learn and progress, it is one of the few things about which I am optimistic and I am not about to give up that optimism.

Sorry for the long post people … got carried away, but I caught the whiff of patronising paternalism and, as always, it stunk!

1031. Then Call it God

Comment #31800 by Corylus on April 14, 2007 at 10:56 am

Cheshire Cat

You intrigue me!

You're obviously well read. Your posts are sometimes funny and couched in technically correct English grammar. You don't believe in God, but you do seem to go for the whole 'belief in belief' deal – i.e. liking nice churches and well meaning believers. You know your bible, your theologians and your John Donne, and you read the Telegraph. Plus you do occasionally come across (I'm sure unintentionally!) as a tad pompous. Now your fury over 'anti-clericalism'…

I am not being mean or sarcastic here, but I really have to ask… Are you an Anglican vicar??

1032. Answers To the Atheists

Comment #31720 by Corylus on April 14, 2007 at 2:05 am

Dr Benway

Don't worry no tomatoes here: I prefer to eat them rather than throw them… yum.

I understand and agree with your point that 'geek' skills are needed right now: the world has a lot of problems, not least huge environmental issues. However, I do think that the automatic linking of geekiness and lack of emotional response to atheism doesn't really tell the full story.

This is because it ignores the whole Humanist tradition: one of empathy and care. Also, it ignores the fact that many, many believers lose their faith due to finding the problem of evil insuperable. How can a benevolent God do nothing in the face of evil actions against innocents? The recent school shootings at Beslan in Russia and in the Amish school in America have caused particular reflection.

This is where theologians would start talking about 'theodicy' the doctrine that God allows these actions in order to 'test our faith' or to 'allow us to grow and develop'. Well, this is one test I am happy to fail, thank you! Religious people often ask "What would you do I you're wrong and find yourself facing God when you die?" The implication, of course being, that I would be grovelling and begging forgiveness, my answer? "Well, if he does exist he has some explaining to do and I would welcome the opportunity to give him a piece of my mind."

Now, some people will be saying here that surely empathy is the result of evolutionary programming and finding actions against children particularly vile is a prime example of this. Totally agree! Does this make moral judgements based on empathy invalid? No. In what way does understanding something, and explaining something take away its practical use?

My point? Atheists aren't just emotionally stunted nerds, there are plenty of touchy-feely hippies in their midst too. Sleep well Doc :)

1033. The God Delusion is one of the Ten Best Audiobooks

Comment #31589 by Corylus on April 13, 2007 at 11:41 am

KarlJ
Somewhat harsh! Don't forget these books are good for more than just lazy non-thinkers. People with visual problems or intelligent dyslexics spring to mind. They also help schoolchildren get through classics with considerably less pain - especially turgid Dickens classics (no suprises that there is one of those on the list).

Personally, though, I like them because I can get through them while travelling to and from work; without straining my eyes with a jolting book on a train or causing a crash in my car.

Dr Benway
Looks like you are getting through enough books on your own without needing recommendations.. Word of advice though, no D.H.Lawrence, his prose is fine in text, but read out load.. NO. I'm afraid it only inspires helpless childish sniggering in me. You don't look good on public transport when you do that...

1034. Einstein & Faith

Comment #31585 by Corylus on April 13, 2007 at 11:14 am

Comment 31515

Brian
You're getting good at this youtube stuff: don't let anyone tell you different :-)

1035. Einstein & Faith

Comment #31499 by Corylus on April 13, 2007 at 2:02 am

Poor old Einstein... you just can't please everyone can you?? :-)

1036. The Great British Literary Census

Comment #31494 by Corylus on April 13, 2007 at 1:23 am

Nice to see TGD in there. A brilliant contrast to that dreadful "Alchemist" book that turns up in just about every "best books" list I've seen.

BTW: For those who haven't read Coelho's masterpiece it is a thinly veiled religious tract. It also contains the dubious conclusion that only spiritual journeys are worth taking and that you can find happiness in your own back yard. In other words: be grateful for what you have... nevermind if your a poor peasant.(Don't bother! Self-indulgent drivel.)

My recommendations from this list:

Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell - Suzanna Clark. Impossible to clasify: elements of fantasy, social commentary, amazing erudition. (Nearly 800 pages, now that's a tome!) A world in itself, quite astonishing.

A Short History of Nearly Everything - Bill Bryson. Amazingly informative and funny at the same time.

Artemis Fowl - Eoin Colfer. Nice childish, escapist fun.

All in all, an amazing list. Well done RD for getting on it!

1037. Hey Mom, I'm an Atheist

Comment #30941 by Corylus on April 10, 2007 at 12:02 pm

This is comparatively mild. Before we all feel especially singled out for vilification here it is important to remember that Christians are capable of spectacularly throwing their toys out of the pram over paganism too. I post a link to a famous video apparently from American wife swap (not the sort of program I tend to view, so I take YouTube's word for it). This is what happens when a fundamentalist Christian spends time in a pagan house.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCODIhAXbQM&mode=related&search=

P.S. I loved the bit at the very end when it became evident that "God's Warrior" had decided, upon reflection, to cast off her "spiritual armour" and take the money …. Maybe it didn't fit??

1038. Charles in Space! American tourist floats into space station

Comment #30807 by Corylus on April 10, 2007 at 12:04 am

Hurray! Some cheerful stories after all of that self-indulgent Easter drivel.

Charles: thanks for making me feel infinitely less guilty over my intent to spend some money (that I can't afford) on my holiday this year. I can now tell myself it is but the tiniest fraction of what you paid. Hope you enjoy yourself :-)

1039. How to defend your faith with an electric wheelchair

Comment #30394 by Corylus on April 8, 2007 at 1:48 am

Wow, I do hope it was not one of these!

http://www.tankchair.com/default.htm

Before anyone accuses me of mocking the disabled – I got sent this link by a disabled pal who thinks they are cool and wants one. If I ever come into lots of money she'll get her wish. She is a pagan hippie for I have no fears about her getting arrested. Thinking about it though… she really doesn't like fundies… maybe I should reconsider?

1040. Militant atheists: too clever for their own good

Comment #30111 by Corylus on April 7, 2007 at 1:49 am

Eamonn

Gender defined personality differences affecting religiousity? My first reaction would be to go 'no!'

But, if the figures bear this out, then is an interesting point, and needs to be investigated coldly and calmly.

I would suggest that while, as you rightly point out, there is equal educational opportunities for males and female in the UK, there still remains a difference in terms of social conditioning.

Women are still told that they are more kind and polite than males and that is a virtue.

So it might well be that some women (not me: I consider honesty a bigger virtue than politenes!) do not explicitly reject religion when questioned because they do not want to appear arrogant and mean.

It is possible that women are not more naturally inclined to religion, there may just be a confounding variable at work in relation to the answers given when questioned.

1041. Militant atheists: too clever for their own good

Comment #30104 by Corylus on April 7, 2007 at 1:14 am

No-one has picked this up yet:

In fact, in all this I hear the voices of a university high table - and almost invariably male voices at that - proving something to their own satisfaction while other people cook the lunch.

The Victorian Prime Minister Lord Salisbury once criticised Roman Catholicism for being "an excellent religion for peasants and women". But what sort of a religion would it be which was not excellent for peasants or women (who made up about 90 per cent of the world's population in Salisbury's day)?

Nice correlation with atheism and sexism Mr Moore… Trouble with this theory though is I happen to be atheist and last time I checked I had tits. The reason that there are less female than male atheists worldwide is because of discrimination in terms of providing education. What is a common rationale for this? You guessed it religion: for what is the point of educating someone that God says is, by definition, intellectually, morally and physically inferior?

I also try not to swear (it is not ladylike after all!) However I have to say to Mr Moore "Sir, you are a complete and utter fuckwit".

1042. John Paul Sainthood Nun 'Gentle, Simple'

Comment #28588 by Corylus on March 30, 2007 at 2:20 am

Isn't it interesting that this is a miraculous, non-scientific 'cure' for a illness that stem cell research might help with??

This quite put me off my cornflakes this morning.

1043. The Fifth Flea!

Comment #28244 by Corylus on March 28, 2007 at 1:42 pm

Cheshire Cat

Wherein could this flea guilty be,
Except in that drop which it suck'd from thee?

John Donne is one of my favourite poets, please do not demean his beautiful, sensual poem 'The Flea' by quoting it in this context.

The relationship between Dawkins and these other authors has no relevance to love poetry.

P.S. Yes, I know Donne was a religious man, but he was a child of his time.

1044. The many forms of fundamentalism

Comment #27665 by Corylus on March 26, 2007 at 3:49 am

Grey Wizard

I really do understand where you are coming from. The whole thing does indeed make no sense whatsoever!

Breaking things down, I would say the whole 'enlightenment questioning itself' argument is put forward by two different types of people.

1) Those that do not understand the Enlightenment, which (as you rightly point out) was about questioning. This is common amongst young people given a little learning by inept teachers.

2) Those who do understand the Enlightenment, but take issue with its' central tenet: that of progress through questioning. (These are the scary ones). That is the real difference between Enlightenment questioning and post-modern questioning: the notion of progress. While the Enlightenment was about optimism, post modernism is about nihilism. (I am sure that some would accuse me of oversimplification here, but this is really as I see it).

So when these people talk about 'the enlightenment questioning itself' they are not questioning questioning. (If that makes sense!) What they are questioning is whether there is any point listening to the answers. They persist in questioning themselves though, because they do not know what else to do.

You are correct, it makes no sense: I am going to nail my colours to the mast here… Postmodernism is drivel. It is self-referential, nihilistic, relativistic, obscurantist hogwash. Unfortunately, it is fashionable and because of the long words and run on sentences used by its proponents, it appears much more profound than it actually is.

Rant over! I feel better for that. Thanks you giving me a chance to get on one of my favourite soapboxes. :-)

1045. Mormons miffed over coffee-swilling angel image

Comment #27581 by Corylus on March 25, 2007 at 12:41 pm

Scottish Geologist

Cool link! Now I see why women should wear skirts and men trousers/pants.

BTW: I do hope for the sake of your immortal soul that you are not sitting in front of your PC in a kilt. ;-)

1046. Mormons miffed over coffee-swilling angel image

Comment #27516 by Corylus on March 25, 2007 at 5:47 am

Ridelo

"Knickers" is an English word meaning underpants (particularly female ones) - so getting them twisted is not a good idea.

So yes, the phrase 'knickers in a twist' does mean getting upset and agitated. :-)

1047. The many forms of fundamentalism

Comment #27515 by Corylus on March 25, 2007 at 5:29 am

People are asking "What is postmodernism?" Tough one!

I hesitate to give an answer to this, as I am sure that there are others on here much more qualified, and it's been a while since I studied this :-).

What is Postmodernism?
In a nutshell, Postmodernism is characterised as a distrust of overarching claims to knowledge.

How did this arise?
Well, lots of debate on this one, I would say that it pretty much boils down to the soul-searching and disillusionment that took place after the hideous events of the two world wars. Optimism and certainty disappeared (particularly amongst the colonial nations of Europe). A pivotal moment appears to have been the Nuremberg Trials – how could these seemly sane educated men act in such a fashion? Could they even claim that they were acting in accordance with the Kantian Categorical Imperative?

There was also a growing realisation that the paternalistic meddling in the affairs of less developed nations that the West had indulged in for so long was coming home to roost. E.g. Did we get it all hideously wrong? Can it be that those in the West are the real 'savages'?

This, (admittedly totally justified!) questioning had wide ranging (and not always welcome) effects in a variety of fields.

Architecture
This is one of the earliest manifestations of postmodernism. E.g. "Lets build new and interesting buildings and forget the past." (N.B. This was also aided by the manufacture of new and exciting building materials).

Nothing wrong with this per se, but the irony is that is those architects who insist in 'thinking outside the box' often end up just building boxes.

History
There was a rejection of the understanding of history as a teleological discipline: sometimes things get better rather than worse! Very true, sometimes they do.

In terms of the implications of this, well, there was a rejection of Hegel (good plan). However, there was also a rejection of any idea of progress and pessimism with regard to societal change, e.g. Foucault's unrelentingly miserable histories (bad plan).

Politics
What are political theorists, but those with overarching claims? Gotta Go! This is shown in the flirtation with anarchism. Young post-modernists are good with this: they grow out of it when they realise, (that contrary their rose-tinted views) the general public does not just consist of suppressed noble savages eager to throw off the yoke of repression. There are also lots of low-life scum who will, without Police and the rule of law, happily steal your CD player and molest your pet gerbil.

BTW: Postmodernists with all their distrust of wide ranging claims still often show an unsupported and emotional attachment to Marx – something I happen to find quite amusing.

Philosophy (particularly of science)
Oh dear, this is where people on this board will get cross! One of the arguments for the Enlightenment being a good thing lies in the technological and scientific advances made, what if this is all wrong? What if science is non teleological too? Einstein comes along and messes with Newton, whatever is next!

What if there is no progress in scientific endeavour, but merely different changes of viewpoint? What if there are just 'paradigmatic shifts' (Kuhn) or 'epistemological breaks' (Bachelard).

This led to a rejection of Popper. Well, I do have a TINY but of sympathy here – I do reckon Popper can be a bit simplistic. Waits for bullets to fly ;-) However, this thinking can also lead to the most indescribable idiocy.

Firstly, there is a rejection of scientific 'truths'. There is an idea that while they have surface validity, science is just one of many different types of 'discourse'.

(RD makes the point that these are the very people who trust scientific truths when they fly in aeroplanes, and I have to agree).

Secondly, and just as dangerously, there is a tendency to assume that as; science is merely one type of discourse; its truths are interchangeable with those of other discourses. For example, Heisenberg as an argument for agnosticism, or worse, a proof of God. FFS!

Feminism
This is where I get cross, (I'm a girl so I'm allowed). It is pointed out that the whole Enlightenment business was a male endeavour (those women involved tend to get conveniently ignored). Science is a male endeavour; lets ignore it. (The women involved here get conveniently ignored too) In fact let's ignore men as well. Lets sit in a room, moan about male repression, but do absolutely nothing to agitate for equal rights and opportunities in all types of 'discourse' as this is a waste of time. Grrr... Daft cows!

Conclusion
I do seem to have gone on and ranted a bit… sorry!! But I guess my point is that post-modernism went from justified suspicion concerning the sweeping claims made by those in power to unjustified relativism, and it is very pervasive. It also has an annoying tendency to mess with young questioning minds and waste their time.

1048. The Salem Hypothesis

Comment #27236 by Corylus on March 23, 2007 at 3:55 pm

Baron,

Quick turnaround on the avatar change! But an equation? I was kind of hoping for a carrot.. or maybe.. a parsnip?

1049. The Salem Hypothesis

Comment #27224 by Corylus on March 23, 2007 at 3:31 pm

Wow – bit heated on all sides here. I hesitate to stick my head over the parapet here, but there is something that I would like some opinion on…

First, let me say that:

A) I do think that engineering is a science: building something and seeing whether or not it works sounds like a method of experimentation to me. (N.B. Dennett even goes further than this in "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" by suggesting that just as there is a field of 'Philosophy of Science' there should be a field of 'Philosophy of Engineering': I think this is a lovely notion).
B) I do not have a downer on engineers, in fact I would never have got to university but for the hard work of my 100% sane, agnostic, engineer father. I do not have enough personal experience of engineers to love or hate them as a bunch: but there is one that I love very much indeed and I won't have a word said against him.

Right, now I have put on my flak jacket, let me suggest a possible explanation for the Salem Hypothesis…

No one here has mentioned Asberger's Syndrome. This, as I am sure most of you know, this is a high functioning autistic spectrum disorder. It is characterized by an obsession with rules, pedantry, poor social communication and a desire for an ordered environment about oneself. (Made for creationists then!)

However, it is also often accompanied by a higher than average IQ and technical talent in such fields as mathematics, software design and ENGINEERING. Those interested can read more about it here:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asbergers

I am wondering this might account for the creationist/engineering link??

No, I am NOT saying that all engineers are mentally ill. Yorker, please don't tell me off :-) I would however be very interested if those on this board with experience or working with lots of engineers would scan the wiki link above and see whether there is anyone they recognize?

P.S. Baron Ochs: I am really tempted to ask 'what's with the big (is it an aubergine?) thing on your avatar, but maybe I don't wanna know ;-)