1401. The Out Campaign

Comment #60441 by steve99 on August 2, 2007 at 12:57 am

It is commonly known that Bonobo chimps have a completely unique sexual behaviour, so are in no way a representation of nature in general. For example, they are the only known apes (humans aside!) to engage in oral sex. In this species, the female is generally dominant - again an oddity.

This is not the case. Oral sex has been reported in many animal species. But even if what you say were true, it misses the point entirely. The fact that gay sex is so widespread and species-dependent is a pretty good clue that it is both genetic and in some way advantageous. It is even more compelling because it is so dominant in species very closely related to humans. It is also found in orang-utans, for example.

Also, the idea of homosexuality is being beneficial is not "my" supposedly PC theory.

There are many cases of non-reproductive members of species assisting with the reproductive process - food gathering, looking after young and so on. There is no reason why homosexuality should not be part of this.

This has been the subject of research, and there have been reports that female relatives of gay men, on their mother's side of the family, had more children than female relatives of heterosexual men. (Corna et al. 2004 Proceedings: Biological Sciences 271: 2217-2221).

Research on this does appear to be sparse, but this does indicate that this is not a silly 'PC' theory - the idea at least is biologically sound.

1402. The Out Campaign

Comment #60437 by steve99 on August 2, 2007 at 12:34 am

Even if Steve99 really "played the gay card constantly" (he doesn't), what does it matter? The barbaric homophobic bigotry of the church is an important reality that Wee Flea has been unable to answer or defend. It is among many such points that neither Wee Flea nor any other theist here can answer. That's the point here.

Absolutely, but it is not just that. It also highlights the constant whining of The Flea about persecution and attacks from atheists, while all the time he is working to persecute and oppress others.

1403. The Out Campaign

Comment #60378 by steve99 on August 1, 2007 at 5:40 pm

It would seem that both you and Steve have a bit of emotional involvement in this discussion.

Well, being called an evolutionary reject has that affect :)

1404. The Out Campaign

Comment #60364 by steve99 on August 1, 2007 at 5:12 pm

The flea has a point; one which I once remarked upon: you play the 'gay card' constantly.

Don't be silly. As I have pointed out, you seem to have an obsession in seeing 'a gay card' where there is none. You confuse comparing campaigns and strategies with someone stating equivalence.

And, with David Robertson, you can bet I am going to damn well play the 'gay card'. This is someone who claims victimhood and that atheists who disagree with him are being oppressive. I will respond to that because his church is institutionally homophobic.

Your 'evolutionary' explanation of homosexuality is laughable because it is so far-fetched and speculatory.

I am impressed by your scientific and rational response to my explanations.

I have two things to say about this.

Based on the above statement, I can barely wait..

Michel Foucault may be right in that 'homosexuality' is a Victorian invention - before there were just homosexual acts, not homosexual people. I think, however, that recent science has proved him wrong.

You bet it has, which supports my view.

Secondly, the obvious evolutionary reason for homosexuality is that it is nature's way of stopping the reproduction of feeble genes. I can't prove that, but it seems more likely than your PC version (which can neither be proved).

How charming. I am some kind of feeble gene repository that has to be prevented from having offspring.

Your views are proved wrong by the most trivial observation of nature. In bobono chimps, same-sex relationships aren't just a significant percentage of the population, they are the dominant and widespread. This is nothing to do with PC - this is is observation of what actually happens in nature.

I mention homosexuality rarely in my posts, and only when relevant - just check other threads. To claim I 'play the gay card constantly' is clearly nonsense, as any browse through this site will show. I think you might like to pause and consider why you feel the need to post so urgently when I do.

1405. The Out Campaign

Comment #60349 by steve99 on August 1, 2007 at 4:31 pm

Sorry Steve – it cannot be right that in every thread you bring up the question of homosexuality.

Of course it is right. Your church is homophobic. And when you speak of being 'oppressed' by atheists, I can't believe your blatant hypocrisy.

If everyone was to do that with their pet subjects then the whole purpose of discussion would be meaningless.

But it is a pet subject of yours, my dear David, as it is a fundamental part of the doctrine of your church that you are bigoted against people like me.

Why don't you get Richard to write something on homosexuality – how in terms of evolutionary biology it makes perfect sense and is a good way of preserving our genes – and then I will be more than happy to enter into a discussion.

There is no need. Homosexuality has already been shown to be a good way of preserving genes, as it is so widespread in healthy reproducing animal populations. The presence of non-reproducing adults is commonplace in many animal species, and highly beneficial to reproduction, in terms of encouraging bonding and mutual support. In many ape species, same-sex relationships and sexual activity is a way of defusing tension and encouraging friendships. Non-reproducing sibilings, for example, assist with the gathering of food, and with protection of young with which they are closely related, so helping many of their genes to survive.

OK, so I have given a good reason for homosexuality improving reproduction. So now I assume you are prepared to enter into debate?

Or you could post something on our website.

So you will respond there, but not here? So why are you bothering to post here?

But I am not going to answer questions about homosexuality or the Pope etc every time I post on a thread here.

Are you serious? Are you trying to say you aren't prepared to answer questions about things you swore to as part of oaths, or about what is part of the core doctrine of your Church? I am afraid that does not reflect well on your position in that Church. You lied when you made the oath, so I wonder what else you feel about your Church's beliefs are dogdy?

1406. The Out Campaign

Comment #60158 by steve99 on August 1, 2007 at 7:16 am

Flagellant... surely you mean 'monothéistic'?

1407. The Out Campaign

Comment #60150 by steve99 on August 1, 2007 at 6:21 am

You and your caffeinated teas. There is a universe of other infusions out there. Think how much tea-ism could be expanded by incorporating the vast and majestic ideas of herbs and fruits. But no! You prefer to say "mine is a little tea"...

(Sorry .. forgot the attribution.. that was taken from Sagan's "The Pale Blue Cup")

1408. The Out Campaign

Comment #60010 by steve99 on July 31, 2007 at 12:23 pm

steve99 brings out the usual shibboleth, homosexuality.

Well, that should not be a surprise. It is for selfish reasons, as I am gay. And, David, your church actively works to oppress me. So, I am sorry if I don't conform to your standards of niceness. For me, the discussion with you is always going to be personal, as against polite and theoretical.

And you are right, the issue of homosexuality is a shibboleth. Your attitude to it puts you in a bigoted group that is out of touch with mainstream society. It marks you out not only as bigoted yourself, but as someone who uses your position in a religious group to help spread that bigotry. Isolated from your religion and its centuries-old and redundant dogma, your views would be exposed for what they are - repugnant and ignorant.

You select with care the verses of the bible that support your personal views. You also lied when making your vows, as you consider some of what you has to say to be ridiculous. And yet, with apparently no sense of irony, you claim backing from the bible and from your church for your repellent views.

1409. The Out Campaign

Comment #59957 by steve99 on July 31, 2007 at 8:30 am

steve99 brings out the usual shibboleth, homosexuality.

And why not? I am gay, and the doctrine of your church is prejudiced against me. Using religion to support prejudice is one of its nastiest aspects. The fact that you aren't prepared to renounce this aspect of doctrine in the same way as you seem to arbitrarily renounce others surely indicates that the prejudice comes from within you, and you are using the church to back it up.

Sorry, Wee, but you can't defend your point of view with a flippant comment like this. It would be like some one using the bible as interpreted centuries ago and saying...

"And Steve brings out the old shibboleth of slavery"

Perhaps if you could answer the question as to how you know which parts of the bible to ignore, and even which parts of your own Church's doctrines to ignore, then I would have at least some respect for you.

Unfortunately, for me, because of your views, it is as much personal as theoretical. You and your fellow churchmen have worked to oppress me. So I am sorry if I don't seem that friendly.

1410. The Out Campaign

Comment #59899 by steve99 on July 31, 2007 at 3:51 am

Well said Baeoz. Robertson like the rest think his way is the only valid way. Did you know that he made an oath stating the Pope to be the antichrist?

Ah, but he had his fingers crossed behind his back while he said it, so it didn't count.

1411. The Out Campaign

Comment #59884 by steve99 on July 31, 2007 at 2:51 am

This whole political campaign is actualy a call to discriminate.

And I suppose that your doctrine, with its explicit statements against the rights of gay people, isn't discriminatory?

Not for one minute do I beleive that RD and all you tolerant atheists will vote for a religious person, or allow a religious school or if you had power allow any public expression of what you consider to be so evil. In fact atheism whenever it comes to power is remarkably intolerant.

That, you see, is the problem with belief that rejects evidence. Many, may of us have close friends who are religions. I would have no problem with them having any position of authority.. as individuals.

What is it issue is organised groups people trying to control others' lives based on magic books. Like your discrimination against gay people. Like the attempts to introduce God into science classes. Using politics, schools and other institutions to close up people minds and make them intolerant.

You need to stop projecting your own intolerance onto others.

And Billy: Yes, I'll bet it is fear. Harris and Dawkins (and now Hitchens) have really started something major. Atheism is now a frequent subject of discussion across all media, and I find it openly mentioned at social events I attend, whereas before it would have been 'impolite' to talk about. Things are changing.

1412. The Out Campaign

Comment #59831 by steve99 on July 30, 2007 at 7:01 pm

atheism is a choice rather than an orientation

I am not sure things are that simple. I have heard of many who have struggled with their faith, and would really choose to believe if they could, but in all honestly they can't. For some, atheism is a wonderful discovery. For others it is a sad discovery, that once made leaves their lives with a little less magic. But however it is arrived at, I really don't think one can so easily choose disbelief - it is a condition one arrives at.

1413. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #59739 by steve99 on July 30, 2007 at 1:40 pm

Yeah, you gotta hope people are tearing bad research to shreds all the time. There's a constant pressure to cut corners, either because you can't get enough subjects, or you can't control for other factors, or funders have an agenda.

When I have come across nonsense research and analysis, it was not that - it was plain ignorance of good methodology, and, especially, how to analyse data. For even supposedly well-respected researchers, the 'Standard Deviation' type of statistics available on a pocket calculator was all they ever used, or ever realised they could use.

As for rules of evidence, I think DG's failings go far deeper than that - he reveals fundamental misunderstandings of the processes of logical reasoning.

Nice pics.

1414. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #59720 by steve99 on July 30, 2007 at 11:59 am

Dr Benway:

Sorry, that was a light-hearted suggestion. I find your posts on this subject very interesting. My first degree was in biochemistry.

Hormone levels fluctuate widely throughout the day.

Indeed - I remember, during my degree, reports of experiments which showed dramatically different results because they researchers failed to take this simple fact into account.

1415. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #59705 by steve99 on July 30, 2007 at 10:16 am

You must understand, Steve, that when answering questions about my theistic worldview I need not respond in ways that a naturalist would find agreeable.

You aren't responding in ways that anyone who understands rational debate and logic would find agreeable.

And this is an example:

That question is only meaningful if asked about the naturalistic worldivew.

No, it isn't. You are not in a position to state *when* the question is and is not meaningful - you can't make it conditionally meaningful depending on which worldview you accept - that is not a rational approach. You can only declare the question universally meaningful, or universally not meaningful. To claim that a problem is *now* meaningful because you are thinking in naturalistic mode, so you reject naturalism, but *now* it is not meaningful so you don't have to deal with the problem in 'spiritual' mode is logically inconsistent.

You have two consistent choices:

1. The problem is meaningful. In which case, you HAVE to explain it within idealist theism.

2. The problem is not meaningful, in which case it is no reason to reject naturalism.

Which one do you choose?

By the way, you may ask *why* the problem is not dependent on worldview; after all some problems do indeed disappear from a change in perspective. But this one does not, as the problem itself arises from first-person experience. The question 'how does my consciousness arise' is context-free. You either ask it, or you don't, independent of 'worldview'.

Again, you can't possibly understand the hypothesis of idealistic theism (never mind test whether it works better than naturalism) if you insist to keep thinking naturalistically. In order to be able to compare worldviews you must first let go of yours, step back as it were, and compare them with a free mind.

I claim my mind is far freer than yours, as I am open to more possibilities. You have the more closed mind, as you reject possibilities based on the limits of what you personally consider absurd or unreasonable. That is an unmistakable sign of a closed mind! You are rejecting an understanding of what reality may really be like, and substituting one that you feel personally able to cope with.

I am not sure what you refer to here, but I have often pointed out that my objective is this thread is not to argue that God objectively exists

Ah.. so you don't care whether or not Jesus was his son, or whether or not he was resurrected?

(after all a naturalist can't argue that the physical universe objectively exists either),

They certainly can, and I do.

1416. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #59550 by steve99 on July 29, 2007 at 2:01 pm

Dr Benway:

What a fascinating post. I knew of those who had problems with understanding the minds of others, but I did not consider such an in-built problem of understanding one's own mind and its functioning and weakness - I assume this is a kind of 'blind spot' in thinking.

Before reading your post, I came up with what I think I is reasonable parallel to the way DG thinks of his worldview: I believe he is rather close to being actually in love with it. The initial phase of love includes a lot of happy delusion, where criticisms of the beloved can be hand-waved away, and where minor failings seem to actually make the beloved seem even more appealing. Rationality fades under the influence of hormones.

I wonder if blood tests on people with beliefs like Dianelos would show an enhanced level of the hormone oxytocin?

1417. OUT Campaign Launched, 'Scarlet Letter' Shirts Now Available!

Comment #59533 by steve99 on July 29, 2007 at 11:54 am

But that's what you've alluded to throughout your posts.

No, I haven't. All I have done is illustrate that many criticisms of the 'Out Campaign' are clearly invalid, as things have not worked out as suggested in campaigns run in similar ways.

Secondly, the 'Out Campaign' is blatantly identifying atheism with homosexuality.

Even if they are, I have nothing to do with them, or them with me.

Personally, I also think calling it 'Out Campaign' is misguided because it has such an implicit link with 'outing' and homosexual equality campaigns.

But that is nothing to do with the issue of symbols and campaigning in general.

1418. OUT Campaign Launched, 'Scarlet Letter' Shirts Now Available!

Comment #59519 by steve99 on July 29, 2007 at 10:22 am

As a white heterosexual with total opportunity, saying that I am an oppressed minority (as an atheist) is an insult to truly oppressed groups.

Talk about missing my point!

Of course I am not saying that atheists (or those with any other intellectual stance) are oppressed like gay people were and still are. (Although I would claim that the excessive control of Churches in the UK where I live is definitely some degree of oppression).

What I was saying was that such publicity campaigns can be very successful by helping to remove worry about (sexuality/a different point of view/whatever) through visibility. I was also making the point that sharing a logo and a campaign in no way implies atheists are a 'cult' or unified group. I was simply comparing 'marketing campaigns'.

On the other hand, I belief religious belief does tend to decline with intelligence, so perhaps one could mischievously call atheism a symptom of 'an inherited tendency to wards rejection of delusion'....

Nothing is ever simple.

1419. OUT Campaign Launched, 'Scarlet Letter' Shirts Now Available!

Comment #59514 by steve99 on July 29, 2007 at 9:56 am

I still maintain that turning atheism into a sect by creating a logo and 'Out Campaign'

I have to admit you are right. I am gay. I have worn rainbow symbols and been involved in campaigns. That has made me part of the great global Gay Sect. We all think alike and worship St Elton of John.

(No, of course we don't. Your worries are clearly unfounded)

1420. OUT Campaign Launched, 'Scarlet Letter' Shirts Now Available!

Comment #59507 by steve99 on July 29, 2007 at 9:26 am

I am afraid that atheists are on the verge of becoming petulant whiners.

Excellent. Better than being silent, and about time too. We have a lot to whine about.

1421. Come Out!

Comment #59470 by steve99 on July 29, 2007 at 6:57 am

Theists say atheism is a religion. By making a symbol for atheism you're playing into their hands.

I just can't see this. You can have symbols for the absence or lack of things.

You're creating a visible target rather than disarming the enemy. This approach will fail.

I think you are going to be proved very wrong. I am gay. In the UK, where I live, we have had dramatic success in gaining support and rights. One of the reasons is because many of us decided to become 'visible targets'. That did indeed help disarm the enemy. That being a few 'queers' that most people could ignore, this revealed that almost everyone knew someone who was homosexual. And, we gay men and women were not strange or weird (or rather, no stranger than anyone else). We had a range of lifestyles, a range of political views and so on. It helped to defuse the hatred.

The same could well happen here. Rather that the current stupid labelelling of atheists as immoral by those who assume they don't don't know any will change when they realise how many there are, and who they are.

1422. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #59468 by steve99 on July 29, 2007 at 6:44 am

I have been camouflaging or avoiding any issues please point them out to me; I am really interested in this.

There seems little point, as when we have done that before, you have just ignored what we have posted.

However, for those new to this, we have pointed out that just about all the pillars which hold up your belief have no foundation.

You base your ideas on false, mechanical, straw men views of what naturalism and science are.

You reject other worldviews using criteria you refuse to apply to your own.

You use as part of your ideas what feels right to you, when any reasoning person knows that such feelings are deeply problematic and not to be trusted.

You include ideas of objectivity that we have shown again and again are horribly flawed in very well-known ways.

You express ideas of free will that are simplistic and contradictory.

You show a deep misunderstanding of what 'explanation' means, when you try and answer 'how' questions (how does consciousness arise) with meaningless 'why' answers (because God wanted it that way).

When anyone gets close to actually convincing you that one of your ideas is wrong, you neatly sidestep the issue by claiming that all you are interested in is the debate, and whether the ideas are 'useful'. Then, after suitable period, you reset back to your claims of rightness.

Worst of all, you have built this seemingly consistent and attractive worldview (I have been bewildered as to why some have considered it 'beautiful') on a mundane Christian delusion - that there is a good God and his Son was resurrected (or did God only give the illusion of resurrection? In the DG 'Matrix', who knows?).

Please don't try and say you have not been avoiding issues.... that avoidance has been a major part of the debate here.

1423. Believing the Unbelievable: The Clash Between Faith and Reason in the Modern World

Comment #58653 by steve99 on July 25, 2007 at 3:50 pm

Sorry for a rather late comment on the video, but this is the best speech I have seen Harris give. He seems to have matured a lot as a speaker. He has improved his pacing, his humour and his tone. He has added new content and background information. Very impressive.

1424. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #58644 by steve99 on July 25, 2007 at 2:38 pm

Fair enough. I hadn't watched it before so wasn't familiar with its format. I'd still question its validity as a format, though. Those of us who are familiar with RD's arguments know that the format didn't give him chance to do full justice to them. So presumably that's true in the case of other interviewees too. Who benefits from that?

We do. If someone has not thought things through, this sort of adversarial yet intelligent questioning can reveal that. Dawkins did extremely well in my view. I would love to see some of his opponents (especially McGrath) put through this kind of quick-fire questioning.

1425. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #58474 by steve99 on July 25, 2007 at 2:05 am

No offence, but sometimes the knee-jerk attacks on anyone challenging Dawkins' positions - and be it only for the sake of journalistic clarity - get a little out of hand here.

Indeed. This seemed to me to be an entirely fair interview, and put serious and important points to Dawkins.

1426. In defense of dangerous ideas

Comment #58203 by steve99 on July 24, 2007 at 2:29 am

Why not propose an alternative question regarding homosexuality by way of illustration? Something repellant but feasible.

Good suggestion. How about this:

"Homosexuality, though natural, should be banned because it spreads disease so effectively"

I don't believe if myself, as I am gay, but I think it is a far better question.

1427. In defense of dangerous ideas

Comment #58190 by steve99 on July 24, 2007 at 1:13 am

The author is not saying that homosexuality is caused by disease, but rather if someone comes up with the question is homosexuality caused by disease

The problem is that, no matter what the context, this question stands out as one that can pretty easily be answered: to a reasonable degree of certainty - no!

The others are far from easy to answer. That was the power of the other questions - are we refusing to answer them out of how we feel about the questions?

1428. In defense of dangerous ideas

Comment #58165 by steve99 on July 23, 2007 at 7:10 pm

"Might infection or immune reaction during development contribute to human sexual orientation?"

"Might infection or immune reaction during development contribute to human sexual orientation?"
Very unlikely, I would have thought. Frequencies of homosexuality seem to be pretty constant throughout history and cultures. An infection is unlikely to be so regular.

1429. In defense of dangerous ideas

Comment #58161 by steve99 on July 23, 2007 at 6:34 pm

The whole article went right over your head, back to the shallow end for you.

It seems my comment went over *your* head. The point of the article was to list statements that *may* be right, but are perhaps not discussed because they are too controversial.

Suggesting that homosexuality could be caused by a disease, when it arises in so many forms in so many species, is extremely poor science, so including it seriously diminishes quality of an otherwise interesting article.

1430. In defense of dangerous ideas

Comment #58109 by steve99 on July 23, 2007 at 2:17 pm

Is homosexuality the symptom of an infectious disease?

I really wish he had not included this one. It is dumb. He would have to postulate an infectious disease that had precisely the same symptoms in all great ape species, in most mammals, even in birds.

1431. Can the rest of us have our planet back?

Comment #58093 by steve99 on July 23, 2007 at 11:33 am

I could barely believe what I was hearing. I was amazed that such a wonderfully sane and savage attack on religion was being broadcast on BBC Radio 4, home of 'Thought for Today', 'Beyond Belief' (which is anything but) and 'The Daily Service'. I could almost hear the teacups of middle-England crashing to the floor in shock. I have been a long-term fan of Brigstocke, but this was exceptional.

1432. Borehamwood eruv granted planning permission

Comment #58087 by steve99 on July 23, 2007 at 11:08 am

They are technical, impersonal laws to arrive at a technical, apolitical end.

The end is extremely political. It is a public and permanent statement of a set of views. It is nothing like as trivial as the wearing of a religious symbol by one person at school (which in itself has been the subject of intense debate), it becomes a permanent part of the architectural landscape.

1433. Borehamwood eruv granted planning permission

Comment #58057 by steve99 on July 23, 2007 at 7:46 am

Surely Jewish law is no more ridiculous than, for example, wearing a tie, supporting a football team, high heeled shoes, gothic metal ear piercings, etc... Ritual is an intrinsic part of human nature.

Those rituals are part of a process of negotiation, of general consensus, generally about inclusivity. Religious requests like this are about partition, about encouraging difference. Also, it is acceptable to mock support of a particular football team; a particular fashion of shoe, or some "aren't I being rebellious and different - just like all the rest" goth fashion. But question or mock some strange religious ritual...

1434. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #58004 by steve99 on July 23, 2007 at 12:08 am

if you are a naturalist (there are still a few on this thread, although their position has taken a bit of a hammering...)

No, that doesn't work. You can't say that a position has 'taken a bit of a hammering' when all that has happened is DG refusing to acknowledge criticisms. Putting one's fingers in one's ears and shouting 'I'M NOT LISTENING' does not constitute 'hammering' anything.

1435. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #57936 by steve99 on July 22, 2007 at 12:50 pm

because of how it feels like when Dianelos thinks of it.

Yes, I guess you may be right. What a frightening way to judge things.

1436. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #57922 by steve99 on July 22, 2007 at 10:28 am

Well, for me ethics is an important cognitive field, and that person is obviously suffering from some kind of cognitive impairment.

Why is it obvious?

1437. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #57834 by steve99 on July 21, 2007 at 1:41 pm

Discussing is not really about winning you know; it's about learning;

I find this a worrying and hypocritical comment. Discussion has certainly not about learning for you. Just about every aspect of your 'worldview' that you have put forward has been subject to serious and rigorous criticism. Any rational man would have learned from that. You haven't. You have repeatedly pressed the 'reset' switch and attempted to pretend that such criticism has never been expressed. Perhaps this convenient deafness to debate explains why you have stated that your views have been reinforced on this thread.

Politeness in debate (which you certainly have shown) only takes one so far. Ignoring deep and profound criticisms of your view is not so forgivable. You are guilty of that, and it makes you look foolish, and would make any rational reader wary of your reasoning.

In recent days, I have thought much about how apparently reasonable people like you can be so deluded. I think I have an idea, which I will explain in a later post.

1438. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #57832 by steve99 on July 21, 2007 at 1:34 pm

Anyone like the idea?

I need to think about it a bit, but kudos to you for the reference to the great Dan Savage, who so cleverly reduced Santorum to a joke. As a gay man myself, I have huge respect for Savage (I am also also happily 'married' like him). He attacked Santorum with such a wonderfully bad-taste campaign.

1439. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #57819 by steve99 on July 21, 2007 at 9:21 am

S/He experiences our life

How embarassing! I really must tidy up the house in that case.

1440. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #57789 by steve99 on July 21, 2007 at 3:00 am

All first and third-person data in our experience are such as to point towards God. Which makes it the more remarkable that many naturalists believe that there "is no evidence" for God.

Wrong. Some (not all) of this data points towards our current lack of understanding of how reality is. It points to a void. You have simply put 'God' there, for your own personal reasons.

This is the thing that really gets me. We all know that we are limited beings - there are things we will never, and can never, understand. To claim God as the answer shows, in my opinion, a huge (even if unconscious) arrogance. For anyone to claim that they have found the true, beautiful, self-consistent worldview shows a major lack of humility. Any honest worldview from what is basically nothing more than a third species of chimpanzee should be full of voids and inconsistencies. We just aren't that clever.

1441. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #57274 by steve99 on July 18, 2007 at 6:09 pm

By refusing to take into account first-person data naturalism is simply ignoring a huge part of the data available,

OK.. I shan't respond to this, as it would send you off on another irrelevant discussion.

I am not saying we should ignore first person data.

All I am asking is ...

Given that we know that much first person data is fallible, how do you you know which first person data to trust?

An easy question for someone with your worldview, surely?

And please, don't go off into matters of other people's first person data, or third person data, or what Einstein thought, or whatever - please just answer the question.

(I am afraid I hear the rumbling of yet another pillar of the Dianelos worldview starting to topple).

1442. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #57044 by steve99 on July 18, 2007 at 7:55 am

The reason is that quantum mechanics models any physical system, be it one single electron or a galaxy, as a "wavefunction" that fills all of the universe and which represents probabilities rather than actualities. But what we observe around us are not probabilities but actualities; we see this apple located here as an actual thing and not a wave of probabilities located everywhere. So that's a very very deep problem that naturalism must deal with.

And deals with it very well. Check out the transactional interpretation of QM. Very elegant.

Another very deep problem is that all science's models don't say anything about consciousness and conscious experience, for example they don't say anything about colors.

And neither does theism.

1443. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #56965 by steve99 on July 18, 2007 at 1:20 am

And why exactly shouldn't theists use such data?

Because it can be hugely misleading. We all know we experience illusions and delusions. I would be interested to know how you decide which personal data to trust and which to ignore.

1444. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #56781 by steve99 on July 17, 2007 at 7:41 am

Thor is/was a god, yes? Men created him to suit their specific surroundings, environment and for example attributed lightning as being one of his little quirks.

Indeed. They looked at the weather, and in their understanding found a perfectly Thor-shaped gap into which.. amazingly! Thor fitted!

1445. The fundamentalist delusion

Comment #56376 by steve99 on July 15, 2007 at 11:54 am

He is calling for a calming of passions and useless rhetoric among all the parties involved in this highly complex and multi-faceted global debate.

I find it somewhat of a problem to remain truly calm when major world-wide religions are working to oppress me because of my sexuality.

1446. An Atheist Responds

Comment #56346 by steve99 on July 15, 2007 at 7:13 am

I find it ridiculous because one of the main arguments made for not going to war, not least by people with some expertise on the dynamics of the region, was that it would lead to sectarian chaos and provide religious extremism an opportunity to flourish.

Sectarian chaos would not have happened if not for a really dumb mistake by the invading forces - to disband the existing power structures and forces which had managed to keep control for decades.

Hitch was a hugely vocal supporter of the war that created this mess in Iraq but now, nausiatingly, uses the deaths of innocent Iraqis as handy bullet points in his athiest manifesto.

I fail to see why that is nauseating or wrong. Deaths of innocent Iraqis are certainly being caused by religious disputes.

He simply passes the blame for its disastorous consequences to the zealots now running riot in the country, as if we had no idea that they existed before 2003.

Of course he and we knew they existed. If the existing security forces had not been disbanded, they would have remained under control.

Thats not good enough; there's blood on Hitchens' hands too.

Don't be silly! As if Hitchens' influenced things one way or the other! The War was not his doing. He had his reasons for supporting it. They are interesting and complex. I disagree with them, but they are reasonable. This is not as black and white as you suggest.

1447. The fundamentalist delusion

Comment #56327 by steve99 on July 15, 2007 at 4:02 am

Time will tell if RD and others, by arguing against religion, are only serving to draw new battle lines.

I hope they do. The new battle lines need to be drawn. So many people don't realise the nastiness and dogmatism of supposedly moderate religion. For example, I was shocked at the stance of Anglican leaders in attempting to resist recent legislation in the UK which gave more equality to same-sex couples. Even Dawkins has fallen into this trap, recently calling the Chief Rabbi a reasonable fellow, when he (the Rabbi obviously!) has reactionary homophobic views.

I don't think conversion of any religious to atheism matters that much right now. What matters is exposing the nastiness of most religions, and embarassing their leaders into getting out and staying out of public debates and politics.

1448. An Atheist Responds

Comment #56321 by steve99 on July 15, 2007 at 2:25 am

I find it ridiculous the way he shrugs off the whole disaster with "well it would have worked if it wasn't for those pesky religious nutjobs!".

Why? It seems to me that the problem right now is primarily religious nutjobs. The majority of the Iraqis had the vision and courage to vote in democratic elections, even in the face of threats from extremists. I would say this backs at least some of Hitchens' views.

1449. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #56320 by steve99 on July 15, 2007 at 2:06 am

Can I urge Naturalists to dip their toe in the water of idealistic theism – there is no harm at all in questioning some of your basic ontological assumptions, and I think it may improve science to do so, even if you don't end up agreeing with Dianelos.

First of all, scientists have been attempting to combine theism of all kinds with their scientific approach for centuries.

Secondly, Dianelos' theism is a poor mess of half-understood and straw men versions of science and naturalism and very poor understanding of philosophy. There may be some idealistic theism that are worth investigating, but not this one.

I would go so far as to call it a sham (even if not an enirely conscious one)... it is all based on the need to believe in a loving God and resurrection, and from that this vast metaphysical view has been built. It is a reasonable approach to start from what you want to believe and work backwards (scientists do it all the time), but only if you are prepared to change or abandon that belief when your ideas are put to the test. This is where Dianelos sadly (and I really mean that) failed. Dianelos is just like the Christian geologist that Dawkins often mentions, who takes the Bible as the absolute word of God, and will, albeit reluctantly, abandon areas of research and reject evidence that disagrees.

I like my faith, it enriches my life, and it is broad enough not to conflict with core beliefs like justice, morality, love. However, when it comes to truth, which I value so very much, I feel uncomfortable.

I can understand that - it is a combination of feelings I went through a long time ago. But there is another aspect to all this that Dawkins mentions. It is about human dignity. Having faith may be part of human nature, but so might so many other things that we now put aside as part of improving our society. Isn't it a bit undigified to rely on these (I would argue) imaginary friends we call Gods to provide comfort and to make sense of life?

A personal note:

I have had some sad experiences in recent years, with the loss of friends and families, and I have to agree with Richard Dawkins about funerals - it is the non-religious parts that provide comfort. They can be individual, they don't treat people as if they are some huge cosmic production line from birth to death to eternal God-workship. A funeral I went to only weeks ago was entirely secular. Although sad, it was a celebration of the live of a very dear friend. The final music was 'Always look on the Bright Side of Life" from Life of Brian! Now that is how to do things, and what freedom from the stifling attitudes of religion can bring.

Without religion, we have our own lives, and our own choices.

1450. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #55973 by steve99 on July 13, 2007 at 4:29 am

I genuinely like a lot of the things he's said when he has simply described some of his beliefs and attitudes.

To be honest, I found it rather embarassing. Someone should not have to delude themselves like that to have likeable attitudes. And it is such a complicated delusion, constructed with such care. and such distancing from any direct questioning that discussion about it gets lost in irrelevancies. It was interesting to see how arguments for the truth of apparently core beliefs were suddenly swapped for arguments about the usefulness of beliefs in beliefs (or was it something even more abstracted? - I am afraid I was often left with my head spinning trying to follow it all). For example, was Jesus actually resurrected? Or did God create the miracle of the illusion of his resurrection, because he was mates with the disciples? (I got lost there too).

You're left convinced that you've punctured his hull several times, but it's like the ship won't sink until the captain notices.

Wonderfully expressed, but it is even worse. It is like you have holed the ship, and the captain won't even admit the holes when they are pointed out. I think it is more like (as undoubtedly mentioned earlier in this marathon thread) the Black Knight in the Holy Grail.