101. Papal encyclical attacks atheism, lauds hope

Comment #92693 by Ian on December 1, 2007 at 8:34 am

If technical progress is not matched by corresponding progress in man's ethical formation, in man's inner growth, then it is not progress at all, but a threat for man and for the world

I actually agree with this, but what on earth make this incompetant old brown shirt think he has any grasp on ethics?

102. Bankrolling Ali's Asylum

Comment #91744 by Ian on November 29, 2007 at 6:00 am

Rightly, how, exactly? Because a couple of jackasses who happen to be atheists said some nasty things about Ayaan Hirsi Ali?

Wed, that isn't how I remember it. We schismed, the full big-ender little-ender spat derided by Swift. That's religious behaviour from people who say they are rationaists guided by facts.

In other words, an experiment was run to find out what we're made of and the results seem to show thinly adulterated pillock. So, if Sam, Richard, Josh or even Ayaan make a snide comment about us, we should take it as a correction and try not to be a pillock again. Learning is rational.

As for your claim that most people here have or will be contributing, I'm afraid that is as poorly substanciated as your claim that the spat was unrepresentative. I've seen no poll or results so far and to me, that is not encouraging.

If we atheists are have anything other than a guerilla existence in the world, then we are going to have to be able to act in concert sometimes. After all, we expect our ideas to cohere so why can't we?

It is a rare opportunity which allows you to stand up to life's bullies without being open to accusations of being aggresive.

Wouldn't it be great if we could have banged a drum about how we all rallied to the cause? Such a demonstration of integrity would have done so much to improve our standing and earn some much deserved respect.

103. Bankrolling Ali's Asylum

Comment #91339 by Ian on November 28, 2007 at 5:02 am

Although I've read posts here about Sam Harris' comment being directed at theists, I think it being double edged is the kindest we can hope for - and quite rightly.

When the appeal was first made, Sam must have thought that he and Ayaan had done enough to establish their reputations for it to work on its own. In suporting it, Josh invested his reputation as well. You'd think that would be enough to cover it, but it seems not - at least not without controversey.

Perhaps Sam was naive in forgetting how difficult herding cats is; if so, then I share his flaw. However, given the situation, no one can blame Sam if he's feeling a little cheesed off with us at the moment and humour can be used to cover all sorts of sour feeling.

As for humour and 'lighening up', can I remind you that there is a woman's life at stake? Not just any woman, but a woman who had the courage to place herself in danger to help others and to warn people of the danger of extremist Islam?

I love humour where it's appropriate, where it isn't used to block someone's opinion and where it isn't used to isolate someone in their misery; for humour has a very nasty face sometimes.

I will be happier when I feel this issue has been sorted out and I know Ayaan is safe, because if we cannot protect her, we cannot protect ourselves.

104. Bankrolling Ali's Asylum

Comment #90837 by Ian on November 26, 2007 at 1:36 pm

"Rick," Harris jokes, "may yet convince me that Christians are more moral and socially engaged than atheists."

It would be food for thought, wouldn't it? If, for all its flaws, religion could act more effectively for the common good. It would be quite a blow against personal freedom.

She's working on a new book, "Shortcut to Enlightenment," in which the Prophet Muhammad comes back to tour New York City and debate modern (although dead) philosophers John Stuart Mill and Friedrich von Hayek.

This sounds interesting, Mill is a bit of a hero of mine - we both hated Theaetatus. :D

105. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #90141 by Ian on November 23, 2007 at 6:38 am

This is my last comment on this thread. I have just worked my sixth consecutive twelve hour night shift and have just a day and a half off before before another 72 hour cycle begins. I am too tired and have too little time to waste any more.

Thanks for your comments Goatboy, though one correction: We are all important, even those who've used a thread labelled URGENT APPEAL to 'extract the urine'.

One day I may suffer an aneurysm and large parts of my brain will die of oxygen starvation. Perhaps then I will be as intelligent as these wonderful people.

I dignified someone's 'hunch' that testosterone was involved only to dispense with it. Since it has reared its ugly head again, I will have one last try: This site is dedicated to rationality and since rational ideas have to be judged by the same standard: I'll have to stoop.

The arguement is: Ayan is female, I am male. I argue in her favour, so my interest is sexual.

Okay, how about this:

Ayan is female, you are male. You argue against her, so you must be a misoginist.

The evidence for this 'hunch' is just as good, so if am to labour under yours, then you should own up to this.

Hang on, Ayan is black and you are white, therefore, you are a racist!

This game is easy.

Personally, I don't think you should cast aspertions on someone's motivations without the slightest evidence.

Someone asked why wear a poppy. Most will do so to show support, to say you those who have suffered: you are not alone.

If you cannot beleive people can act out of sympathy, then you are trapped in cynyicim - a position as irrational as any doctrine.

Enjoy your ashes.

106. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #89926 by Ian on November 22, 2007 at 7:00 am

CJ22:

"When I try to discover what are the original sources of my opinions, both pactical and theoretical, I find that most of them spring ultimately from admiration for two qualities - kindly feeling and veracity." - Bertrand Russell in The Faith of a Rationalist.

Self-righteous moral bullying? That's strong, so strong you'd think people were trying to force people to give, but there has never been any attempt to force a contribution.

If you don't want to contribute, don't. You don't have to explain yourself or blame those who ask. You can just pass over the issue, there doesn't have to be a fuss, but there is one.

The people who try to block compassion are not being rational, not in relation to how they feel and if ever I thought scepticism blocked compassion, I'd become a mystic.

107. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #89919 by Ian on November 22, 2007 at 6:15 am

Keith,

I work in the security industry. Not only do I expect there to be cheats, I make my living off them. I can also tell you that they just have to tell me how clever they are, even when they've been caught. Some of them are so blind, they don't recognise me when I'm not in uniform, even when I speak to them.

Every day I have to listen to doublespeak that fools pour out to cover their own internal conflicts - caused by the lie that being a thief makes them so much cleverer than people who work for a living. It sounds good on The Bill, but in life it's pathetic.

I can't give you any figures, but by my experience, over half of shoplifters are women. Certianly, my female colleagues have plenty to do.

By the way, a drink driver is a criminal, but more importantly, both are fools in the Platonic sense. So yes, I was being even handed.

People who criticise Plato for naivity forget that he saw Socrates taken to court on trumped up charges and executed; murdered for speaking freely. Recognise this theme?

My colleagues think I'm strange, reading all this philosophy. They don't understand why I'm not earning much more than I do, but the answer is in the Apology and I have given it to them to read. They can't see it.

Take it from me, those old Greeks were on to something.

108. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #89848 by Ian on November 22, 2007 at 12:16 am

Keith:

Rules? Where there is civilisation, there is no need for rules. As I said before: civilisation is shared.

You'll have to spell this out for me. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that when something is shared, there is no need for rules. Is this correct? How do you come to this conclusion?

Hi Keith,

Thank you for your question.

My position is complex because I am talking about sharing several different things at the same time: fellow feeling, understanding and any knowledge or resource involved in the interaction.

To most people, rules are not a restriction, because they want to live peacefully on what they earn. They feel rules are needed to help control other people who would steal or take stupid risks like drink driving or some other nuisance action. Mostly, these people are right.

Plato - and I assume Socrates - argued that most evil in the world was not the result of malevolence, but error. This is easy to see in the case of the drink/driver, who over estimates his competence behind the wheel, but for a theif the arguement is a little more nuanced.

Plato would argue that the theif may regard herself as clever in being able to meet her short term needs with little effort and only a small risk, but on a deeper level, she would recognise that her relationship to others was fundamentally parasitic. This knowledge would always be a source of conflict which would force our thief to live in denial and sap her self esteem.

Again, according to Plato, the truely wise person would be good because they actually understand that it is the best way to live, both for itself and its rewards.

Going further, is the role of compassion - the appreciation that people feel in similar ways to yourself. You know that you would not like someone to steal something of yours and so by telling you that another person would feel the same if you stole something from them, compassion stops you being a thief.

Extending compassion further, you know that if your were in trouble, you would want someone to help, so if you see someone else in trouble, compassion should make you want to lend a hand

What I want to know is what is it which not only blocks natural compassion in a person, but what makes that person try to block it in others. To the point that it blinds them to the hypocracy of saying the appeal should not have been made (thus denying free speech) and yet complaining when someone else (not me) tells them to shut up.

Given that this thread is labeled URGENT APPEAL and concerns someone's personal safety, I simply cannot understand such self indulgence; it beggars belief.

What Richard, Sam and of course Ayan feel about this I shudder to imagine. These people, who have put themselves - literally - in the firing line and taken so much - metaphorical - flack so we can express ourselves in the face of religious bigotry have been met with such self-indulgence the one time they actually ask us for something. It makes me sick with shame.

And what happens next time there's a need, if we can't even get it together for Ayan? I would ask whether someone's murder would wake you all up, but several people have already been killed by religious intolerance.

I repeat: civilisation is shared, so compassion is not an option, but a requirement and the best investment you can make in the future.

109. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #89605 by Ian on November 21, 2007 at 8:31 am

Those people who said that the appeal should not have been made are not respecting the right they are using and that is hypocrisy.

Sound's awfully like the moderate muslim response to the cartoons mate - free speech with limits. Just try to throw in a bit of guilt via respect and responsibility and get everyone to play nicely by your rules.

Thank you for your comment and you're right, I do sound like those muslims.

The difference is that muslims are arguing for legislation to restrict free expression; something I will never do. No one needs for Mohammed to be beyond critique, so their arguement is spurious.

Naive freedom is impossible, because rights conflict, so there has to be a process of negotiation to reolve those conflicts.

The best way to preserve the maximum freedoms for us all is for people to cultivate the greatest awareness of each other's needs and freely allow for them. This minimises conflict, which is wasteful and so maximises the resources available to be shared. As Richard Dawkins has argued: civilisation is a non-zero sum game.

Regarding guilt, this is only felt by people who recognise they have done something wrong, it cannot be imposed.

Rules? Where there is civilisation, there is no need for rules.

As I said before: civilisation is shared.

110. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #89579 by Ian on November 21, 2007 at 7:00 am

After reading what Ian wrote I feel I need to quote SilentMike's sentiments further up this comments thread, which I fully agree with:

"None of you are Bill O'reilly so for the love of -WHATEVER- please stop telling people who don't agree with you to shut up."

With respect, I've told no one to shut up. What I asked was why they felt the need to comment.

A right to free speech does not imply a duty to comment on every issue and neither does it confer a right not to be offended. Also the right to free speech does not confer the wisdom to know when it is better to be silent.

Those people who said that the appeal should not have been made are not respecting the right they are using and that is hypocrisy.

Saying that people are being bad in making them feel guilty is pure self-indulgence. No one has the right never to feel bad, so like the rest of the human race, you should mature enough to deal with it.

So again, why comment? Really, what is going through your minds? How far do your concerns stretch? Do you understand that rights come with responsibilities, because they are shared?

It seems to me that everyone I meet wants to be an alpha, when they would be happier if they would set their sights lower: on being a citizen, which has the virtue of being acheivable.

When you write, ask yourself this: what are my concerns?

If they go no further than the keyboard, then you are little more than an isolated baboon, without the understanding of how to be happy. If your concerns transcend the keyboard, go through the screen and merge with ours in cyberspace, then you are properly human - because you are part of a community.

Ayan Hirsi Ali shares our concern for freedom. She is part of our family and that is why people have argued so passionately in her favour.

There, now you know.

111. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #89288 by Ian on November 20, 2007 at 7:34 am

Like Josh, I've been pretty amazed at some of the things I've read on this thread and it raises the question of why selfishness feels the need to speak.

You'd think it would be easy for the selfish to just pass over this thread - after all no one is counting who is and is not contributing, and no one has even suggested that those who lack the spirit of generosity would ever be excluded, so there is no danger to the selfish.

Instead of silence, we've been treated to a real and genuine self indulgence with one bright spark even suggesting testosterone as a major factor in people (presumably only the men) being so awful as to take a moral stance.

Now I'm sure the self-indulgent will say: "No, no, no. We object to you do-gooders trying to force your morality upon us." But, exactly how can we do that? Seriously, I'd like to know exactly you can even be inconvenienced by us terrible people. Right now, I can't do anything to anyone here, so have no means of forcing anyone to do anything.

So I would like you to indulge in a little introspection and ask yourself: What exactly is the problem?

As for the action of hormones, I'm quite happy to admit my strong initial sexual reaction to seeing Ayan through You Tube. I defy any male to see such an exemplar of grace and dignity, and not feel a frisson of excitement.

BUT to reduce male psychology to erratically veering between fear and lust is just plain disgraceful. There is a place in my heart for many emotions and many motivations, including plain old fashioned compassion: seeing a need, I wanted to meet it. Sometimes, it is that simple and if you can't believe that, then at least keep the disgrace to yourself.

In my first post on this thread, I said that I felt priviledged to be able to help. This is because when the fatwa against Salman Rushdie was announced, I had no opportunity to contribute while the Daily Mail whinged about tax money. There was no place to put my flag then, but thanks to Josh, Sam, Richard and of course Ayan, I have one. Thank you all.

So my flag is placed and as a commitment to free speech it is small to the point of insignificance, but nevertheless it stays; a shameless moral statement.

If you disagree, I can respect that, but don't smeer me because you lack compassion.

112. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #88943 by Ian on November 19, 2007 at 8:14 am

Appleby:

How many Ayaan Hirsi Alis are we atheists willing to finance and to what end? What kind of example is she to girls like her former self but an unrealistic one?

All of them.

History is littered with dead religions and Islam is only one more. Giving up on day one only guarantees failure.

113. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #88912 by Ian on November 19, 2007 at 6:54 am

It sounds odd, but I feel privileged to be given this opportunity.

Right now I can't get through to the site, but as soon as I can, I will put myself down for $20 a month.

Thank you, Sam.

You have a lot of courage Ayan, you will be fine.

114. For the glory of God

Comment #88497 by Ian on November 17, 2007 at 5:40 am

The Dali Llama suffers from something that afflicts most of us, most of the time: the assumption that we are mediocre or representative of our type.

Although even Buddhism has had its moments of questionable moral behaviour, the Buddha taught that compassion should not be restricted to Buddhists and is given very high priority. The most highly regarded humans are called Bodhisattva - those who have delayed their attainment of Nirvana in order to help others.

To be a sincere Buddhist, you have to be compassionate and since the Dali Llama thinks all religions are like Buddhism, any religious person must be compassionate.

The Dali Llama reckons without Islam. The word Islam means peace through submission. Muslims want something called tawhid(unity) where everything is governed according to Islamic principles where the umma(Muslims) take precedence over dhimmis (Christians and Jews) and the rest of us(kafirs).

It is therfore internally logical for a Muslim to treat non-muslims as second class citizens and so the failure of compassion is endemic to Islam. Although Muslims will say compassion is important to them, it is given far less importance in Islam and restricted to the umma.

In my opinion, the principle whereby compassion is not restricted to members of an ingroup provides a rational criterion for judging whether a religion is civilised or not, with Buddhism passing the test and Islam failing.

115. 'Expelled' Movie: The Extended Trailer

Comment #88245 by Ian on November 15, 2007 at 2:51 pm

I like their grasp on time: First we had the time of Galileo, then Einstein and finally Darwin.

As everybody knows, Einstein published special relativity in 1859 and Darwin natural selection in 1905.

Simple really.

116. The Turning of an Atheist

Comment #85354 by Ian on November 5, 2007 at 2:40 pm

I just want to add my disgust to that already expressed.

My mother was a victim of dementia and the fact that these people would exploit someone in that condition is sickening.

Now they have their pound of flesh, I hope the vultures can leave him alone; though past experience makes me suspect that there are new lows they can stoop to.

117. Response to Theodore Dalrymple

Comment #85321 by Ian on November 5, 2007 at 1:37 pm

We've sequenced Cro-Magnon DNA and found that they are not in our lineage

Just to back up Goldy, cro-magnon were amatomically modern humans.

Etny, I agree with your assessment: there is a jealousy issue here, not for money but attention.

118. What the New Atheists Don't See

Comment #84480 by Ian on November 2, 2007 at 6:20 am

I have to admire those of you who continued reading.

Reading this on the tail end of a night shift, I was under the impression that this was a fatuous little snipe when it appears to be a fatuous big one.

Mr Dalrmyple, the quote at the start of your essay is not by Satre, but Samual Beckett. If you want some of my time, you are going to have to check your facts first. We may not all be university graduates, but we can still read.

As for transcendental purpose, you may have an innate longing for it, but that is irrelevent to whether there actually is one and it's arrogance beyond expression to assume a 14.7 billion year old universe exists with you as its focus.

Bradlaugh by the way, died of a urinary infection, a fate shared with many of the pious.

119. Make Richard Dawkins a Knight

Comment #80346 by Ian on October 21, 2007 at 11:51 am

Before I sign, I'd like some idea of how Richard would feel about such an 'honour'.

Many very eminent British people have refused a knighthood.

Personally, I wouldn't want to be in the same class as people like Sir John 'politics of envy' Banham.

120. Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams criticizes popular atheist writers

Comment #78647 by Ian on October 14, 2007 at 3:40 am

The believer who worships assumes absolutely that God is there and worth attending to," Williams said, adding: "If God was there before the Big Bang, he must be complex.

But dear Archbishop, the whole attack on darwinism rests on the assumption that complex things require explanation precisely because they are complex. You can not just assume whatever you want and expect to be believed, because it gives no justification to favour one belief over another. If you want to take that stance then you are going to have to justify why anyone should prefer Christianity, because at the moment your position in that regard is unjustified.

Also, the admission that believers assume the existence of God relegates religion to a position under science, epistomologically, because science requires corroboration for any proposition.

Consequentially, your position does not address the great mysteries of existence and so cannot make a meaningful contribution to them. This is profound only in the degree to which it fails to say anything worthwhile.

The religious believer says that moral integrity, self-introspection, honesty and trust are styles of living that connect with the character of an eternal and free agency, the agency most religions call God.

Are the religious really so foolish as to assume they have some special handle on integrity, honesty and self-introspection (btw, what other kind of introspection can there be)?

The truth is that all human beings have some degree of introspection and they are free to decide to be honest and cultivate integrity without regard to either supernatural beings or even other people.

The religious claim that they have some extra grasp of these things is proof that they don't. It shows that if they were really committed to integrity the religious wouldn't claim that we need to study theology when that field of study had no relevence to the question of whther God exists at all. That is a rhetorical ploy inconsistent with integrity.

121. Muslims tell Christians: 'Make peace with us or survival of world is at stake'

Comment #78100 by Ian on October 11, 2007 at 8:38 pm

"I have in my hand, a piece of paper"

"Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it."

122. If Muslim doctors are intolerant, let them go

Comment #77647 by Ian on October 10, 2007 at 1:45 am

Speaking as a kufar, I'd be interested as to when these people are going to refuse to treat me.

I've always been an anti-racist, but such fairness relies on everyone else being just as liberal.

Also, I pay doctors to treat illness, not to stand in judgement over my lifestyle or metaphysical stance. They may by all means advise me to eat more vegetables, because they almost certainly have superior knowledge of nutrition. However, there is no reason to suppose they have a better metaphysical grounding.

Being anti-discrimination means neither commiting it or accepting it from others. These doctors need to shape up.

123. Dawkins - what can't he be blamed for?

Comment #75355 by Ian on October 2, 2007 at 11:48 am

Cartomancer:

It is a well known fact that Richard Dawkins invented the common cold, causes global warming, started the bubonic plague and secretly runs the governments of at least fifteen countries.

I suppose there's no chance of him taking over the UK, is there?

124. Talking Action Figure Jesus

Comment #73461 by Ian on September 25, 2007 at 3:10 am

My sympathy goes out to the kid who gets caught using his Jesus doll to re-enact the crucifixion.

You know it will happen.

125. Religion advances despite science (and thanks to Dawkins)

Comment #73091 by Ian on September 24, 2007 at 5:05 am

It is the reductionism of the argument that creates the confrontation

How naive.

The religious cannot brook contradiction, that is the engine of confrontation.

Copernicus did not delay the publication of De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium because he was afraid of God, death is no escape from Him. Copernicus was afraid of the church.

It doesn't matter whether it's science, an indiviual or another religion, the religious will attack anyone who contradicts them - unless of course, they have lots of guns and the will to use them.

Religious moderates are only moderate in that they don't want to be disturbed. They will hide behind metaphor, spurious claims to nuance and blatant character assasination to stop people showing them the truth. Otherwise, you can take the boat to the point of sinking, as long as you don't rock it.

As long as people accept the false claim that religion has some handle on truth, then that will block the discovery of new knowledge; just as they blocked Copernicus, Galileo, Darwin and who knows what else.

It's their narrow-mindedness which causes conflict and as we have seen, there is no slight, no slander they won't stoop to.

First, they call RD a fundamentalist, now they say his tone is shrill. Both charges are blatantly false, so where exactly is their commitment to truth?

126. VOTE on the 'Faith smackdown': Richard Dawkins vs Francis Collins

Comment #71907 by Ian on September 19, 2007 at 11:47 pm

Marshall1:

You ask about the purpose of life according to Dawkins?

In my view, RD is particularly clear on this issue: The purpose of life is to replicate genes.

This is not the kind of answer you're looking for of course, but that's your fault for having a view of life that marginalises the vast majority of it.

As for the question of what YOUR is life about; the professor has suggested that one purpose could be to learn and put a model of the universe inside your skull.

I think this is an excellent pursuit, as the study of science is enormously fulfilling; but would like to add the promotion of good qualities like compassion to the list.

I think it a mistake to view life as something to be brought to a summation. Life is about movement and I think someone who lives life well is like a jazz musician: able to bring harmony, beauty and interest out of the events happening around them.

127. Young Muslims begin dangerous fight for the right to abandon faith

Comment #69332 by Ian on September 10, 2007 at 11:38 pm

Congratulations to Mr Jami and everyone who has the courage and integrity to stand peacefully for their rights.

I wish the religious would realize that it is futile to legislate people's personal convictions. By definition, you cannot believe what you feel is untrue and because belief occures in the privacy of our heads, it cannot be forced by law.

The fact that the religious cannot respect people's right to disagree really only shows how shallow their own convictions are.

128. In God we doubt

Comment #67679 by Ian on September 4, 2007 at 10:29 am

Comment #67493 by Lauregon

Thank you very much. I was fighting off nightshift weariness to reply to Devolved, when you interceded. Thanks again. :-)

Devolved, you can also look to David Hume's The Natural History of Religion.

Available here:
http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/humenathist.html

And in all good bookstores.

btw, Thanks to Richard Dawkins, for the introduction. :-)

129. In God we doubt

Comment #67318 by Ian on September 3, 2007 at 3:50 am

Well, that was... long.

Being an atheist, I'm bound to have missed some crucial point (or at least some religious type will claim so), but I think Humphrys is saying that people want some emotional connection with the universe and this is the source of religious feeling.

For those people who live in hunter-gatherer or agricultural communities, it must be easy to see spirits in things: trees that want to grow toward the sun, animals who want to hunt or graze etc. That is how they understand things.

For those in cold, hard, impersonal cities...

...but wait: why do we say cities are impersonal, when there are more people there than anywhere else?

Our instinct betrays us and there is the crux of the whole thing.

I think this poor majority of wandering doubters want to be able to live on the instincts we've all evolved with. Instincts which dealt with their environment by projecting intentions into it and that is still how all humans understand things for the most part.

As humans began to understand and unify phenomena in terms of impersonal forces and processes, many small gods gave way to one big one; that is how most people dealt with growing knowledge. But now, our knowledge is outstripping this tactic and people vary in how well they handle this change. Some like us, will handle the transition easily, but for others this projection of intentionality is a blind ally and thier crisis will only deepen - hence the depth of emotion.

As for Humphrys' attitude to us, well he should understand that for centuries, the religious have poured contempt upon us: saying that we lack something, that there are no atheists in foxholes and other casual calumnies. Our attitude is only a reflection of their own and will stop when they address their own poor behaviour.

So please religious people, look to your own sins.

130. Review of Darwin's Angel: An Angelic Response to the God Delusion

Comment #66959 by Ian on September 1, 2007 at 5:38 am

Here is my submission to Times Online:

Having read Sally Vickers' Review of Darwin's Angel, I'm prompted to ask what kind of blindness comes over the religious when they face critique.

For instance, Vickers wrote: "The seraph begins by politely nailing Dawkins's first sleight of hand which, as loads of people have now pointed out, dishonestly bundles all religious belief and practice into one crude bag that supposedly equals fanaticism."

Having read The God Delusion an watched Dawkins speak in numerous interviews online, it is clear that this is not his stance.

Dawkins is saying that moderate followers of religion are partially responsible for religious extremeism, because their taboo on criticising religious ideas gives extremeism the room it needs to grow. This is a long way from lumping all believers into 'one crude bag'.

One wonders exactly how clearly things have to be said, before the religious begin to respond to what is actually said to them.

131. Teresa, Bright and Dark

Comment #66510 by Ian on August 30, 2007 at 7:14 am

Firstly and most importantly: congratulations Veronique. Best wishes to you, your daughter and her family.

Secondly, I have read far too much science to believe that anybody, even myself, is a rational and dispassionate observer. It is questionable that we exist as distinct personalities at all.

Given this, I see no basis for criticism of anybody for being emotional. We are at best emotional beings who can on occasion, be rational.

The purely rational side of me can recognise other people's right to self determination as well as I can appreciate my own and so agrees with the 'pro-choice' position.

However, I also know that my right of self-determination could have been obliterated before it had started and that the same is true for at least four other real people.

It is difficult to remain dispassionate in the face of such things.

132. Teresa, Bright and Dark

Comment #66483 by Ian on August 30, 2007 at 5:36 am

For what it's worth, I feel both sorry for Mother Teresa and just a little contempt.

I wonder what she expected and whether she had the right motive for doing what she did. Did she expect a special relationship with God? Did she do what she did so she could sit by God's side? If her primary motive wasn't to relieve suffering, then could she have done as much good as is claimed for her?

I'm also sorry that she didn't have the courage of her convictions. She allowed herself to be held up as an example to others when in fact, she had doubts of her own.

On the abortion issue, thank you Veronique for your antidote to the glibness which attaches itself to the topic. Though on opposite sides of the fence, we both have personal stakes in this.

When my grandmother realised she was pregnant with my mother - her thirteenth child - she drank an entire bottle of gin in order to trigger a miscarriage. It seems reasonable then to suppose that had abortion been available, neither my mother, brother, my two nieces or myself would ever have existed. Whatsmore, as an O negative blood doner, I am part of a chain of people who have saved the lives of even more.

Decisions about reproduction ramify and I feel too many people speak and act with little consideration of this fact.

I grew up with a parent who resented my very existence and I suffered for it, both in and out of the home. Yet for all I have been through, I am still glad to be alive, so when people argue that it is unfair to inflict that resentment upon a child I agree, but it does not justify an abortion.

Those who argue that a fetus is a ball of cells no better than a cancer have missed something very important: cancers only grow in size, they do not differentiate. A fetus may be a ball of cells, but these cells contain a unique combination of DNA. They are the early stages of a process, which leads to a new person. We were all at one time just such a ball of cells and to argue that it is okay to destroy such a thing because it feels no pain is like saying its okay to murder people in their sleep.

A fetus is not just human, it is all that exists of a new person. Whether conceived in the most serene marriage or brutal rape, that ball of cells is guiltless of its conception.

Of course the final decision must be with the mother - she contributes most to the process by a huge margin - but I think it reasonable to seek assurance that the interests of the unborn have not been disregarded and if the law has to intercede to ensure that, then so be it.

I find both sides in this issue very glib and guilty of gross confirmation bias. I feel for every woman - after all it is happenig to her body - but I also feel that giving a potential human no moral standing whatsoever is profoundly unjust.

133. Mother Teresa's '40-year faith crisis'

Comment #65577 by Ian on August 25, 2007 at 12:52 am

Like others here, I'm not happy they didn't respect her wishes, but there is something even more troubling: her reasons for doing what she did.

Is it possible she did what she did because she wanted to talk to God? It would explain why she was so indifferent to people's real needs, merely providing an austere place for them to die.

Was it really nothing but vanity?

134. I'm gonna be a MOVIE STAR

Comment #65430 by Ian on August 24, 2007 at 6:38 am

It amazes me how these people can believe they are righteous when they are not even honest.

Fighting fund, professor Myers, fighting fund.

135. PZ Myers sued for a negative review in a blog post

Comment #64609 by Ian on August 21, 2007 at 2:12 am

Having read the reviews, it looks to me that Pivar has found a really public way of wasting money and publicizing the Pharyngular blog.

Certainly, on the strength these two entries I think I may become a regular reader.

PZ, if you have to start a fighting fund, don't forget to tell us here how to donate.

136. A Defense of Atheism

Comment #64002 by Ian on August 17, 2007 at 8:29 am

Richard Morgan, it's dificult to see why you expect to be taken seriously, since you seem to be taking the stance that all beliefs are equivalent.

There are in fact, objective reasons to prefer one belief over another and so one belief can legitimately be claimed to be superior to another; for example in gravity.

Before Newton, everyone knew that unless supported, all ojects fell. There were exceptions like hot air balloons, but these were not serious enough to challenge the principle.

When Newton proposed the force of gravity, he not only explained this phenomenon, but united it with the movements of the planets, which up to that point had defied explanation. They not only provided unprecedented accuracy, but expanded the number of things explained.

Similarly, Einstein's theories of relativity both increased the accuracy of the predictions and expanded the explantory territory to include the orbit of Mercury - a mystery to Newtonian mechanics. Whatsmore, relativity predicted new phenomena like black holes and gravitational lensing.

Today, scientists are at work on a new theory of gravity, which will unite it with quamtum theory and perhaps take us back to the big bang itself; thus, encompassing more phenomena to an even greater degree of acuracy.

Clearly then, science is a movement dedicated to weeding out bad ideas and generating new ones which better explain the universe as observed. Scientific ideas are subject to peer review and verification by observation and experiment. Thus, it follows that the enthusiast of science benefits from a body of knowledge superior to that of any other field of study, simply because it comes with some degree of verification.

This of course, is no claim of infallibility, in fact that every theory in science is open to revision shows science is free of dogmatic belief. It is however, legitimate grounds for greater confidence in belief and in the concept of progress.

The religious on the other hand, have never taken the equivalence of belief seriously, except as a rhetorical ploy. They have always claimed their beliefs superior over non-believers, other religions and even other sects of the same religion. Religious beliefs rely on revelation and so cannot be verified. The only options open are to accept or reject - sometimes on pain of death.

You also conflate the belief that one's beliefs are superior to others' with the belief in innate superiority. This is not only offensive, but plain untrue. Scientific knowledge is open to anyone, so any superiority is acquired and open to anybody willing to learn. Why are the religious so dishonest as to attempt this tactic?

Fundamentally, the debate between atheists and theists is about the criteria of belief. Believers have failed to convince us that their criteria are reason enough for belief, so now they attack our criteria and claim that our reasons for belief are at best equivalent to theirs.

They are wrong in this: evidence can be shared and varified, thus replacing conflict (real or rhetorical) in establishing beliefs which reflect the reality of our lives and provide the basis for shared ethical action.

137. Could these books be part of the problem?

Comment #60926 by Ian on August 3, 2007 at 6:19 am

I think some of you are allowing yourselves to be rather naive.

The publishing industry will sell any book they think will make money, irrespective of its quality or whether they agree with the position taken in the book. They won't care how incongruous it seems or whether we get a cheap laugh.

The 'for dummies' and 'for complete idiots' labels are trademarks, just like the 'for beginers' books. There is no reflection upon the subject matter and no guarantee of quality.

The danger in these books is that the reader may be fooled into thinking they know what they need to know, when they - like most books on religion - will be completely uncritical and leave the reader open to infection.

These books are cheap attempts to cash in on the controversey raised by Dennet, Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens.

These are the true fleas, because their relationship is truely parasitic.

138. Beyond Belief: Atheism (with AC Grayling)

Comment #56968 by Ian on July 18, 2007 at 2:13 am

I agree with Automath about 3(4) against one. For what is supposed to be a programme about atheism, there was an awful lot of talk about God.

Ernie Rae's repeated 'aggresive and militant' atheist jibe is typical of the cheap rhoetorical war the 'faithful' have waged against those who are less gullible.

Dr Grayling did magnificently, as he always does on radio. He is always clear and able to refine terms, pointing out errors or areas of loose definition. He should have a radio show of his own.

However, the person who suffers most in my estimation is Ken Miller. Previously I had not known why he believed, now I know it was a failure of integrity. His view of theistic evolution turns God into a torturer of inimaginable proportions; the sort of god deserving of nothing but defiance. It seems Miller chose religious platitudes over honest compassion.

139. A force for evil?

Comment #56140 by Ian on July 14, 2007 at 1:54 am

Hi Pewkachoo,

It seems we've reached a point of agreement and thanks for the dust up, I quite enjoyed it. As you say, forums can get a bit dull, but I think it should stop as the natives are getting restless.

Of course I interpreted Dr Grayling's words, we all do. What I did not do was try to tell him what to say, that's his business. My criticism was always focused on that point, not on your right to hold opinions contrary to his.

It would be a dull world if we all argeed.

140. A force for evil?

Comment #55970 by Ian on July 13, 2007 at 4:18 am

Pewkachoo,

You're getting quite involved with this aren't you? Perhaps overly so?

You repeatedly claim that Dr Grayling's meaning is clear and I agree. The problem is that we have different interpretations, so either one of our interpretations is wrong or Dr Grayling's writing is ambiguous.

Since I am not the only one with this alternative interpretation and Dr Grayling is a highly skilled writer, the implication is that your interpretation is at fault.

By all means disagree with Dr Grayling or myself, but don't mess with our words, because we use the words we judge best say what we mean.

To me it is quite clear that Dr Grayling is saying that ideology is necessary for the abandonment of common human morality, but not sufficient in itself. Therefore, you can have an ideology and not abandon decency, but to abandon human decency you need ideology.

Assuming Dr Grayling is not a personal friend of yours, then the only knowledge of Dr Grayling's views you have is through his writing. Therefore Dr Grayling must remain the authority over his own intentions and it isn't for you to edit his words.

By all means disagree. After all, lots of people who are too ignorant to hold an ideology are cruel, so he is just plain wrong - but if you ignore these ignorant fools, Dr Grayling has it about right: ideology is a necessary condition for cruelty. Once you understand the concept of rights, then you need some form of excuse to override them. Religion certainly fits the bill here.

As for my implying you are a fool, well you do assume that you can express Dr Grayling's intent better than he can and have no way of confirming with him that that is in fact the case.

Now that we are not subject to censorship, we are all limited by the bounds of our knowledge and if we go beyond, then inevitably we fall into foolishness. That is the way things are.

141. A force for evil?

Comment #55845 by Ian on July 12, 2007 at 3:05 pm

Pewkatchoo,

I'm disappointed by your response. I am no sycophant as far as Dr Grayling is concerned. I only own one book of his, which I have as yet to read.

However, I have read enough philosphy to know that people like Dr Grayling do not use language clumsily and if Grayling's intent was to paraphrase Weinberg he would have just quoted him. Since he didn't, then his meaning must not have been the same.

After Wittgenstein, philosophy has been about little other than language and its relationship to meaning, so modern philosophers have extremely fine control over what they say.

The intent of my post was not to rebuke, but to give pause. Pause is good, it gives time for rational faculties to consider other possibilities.

By all means, rush in like a fool, there's no law against it. I just can't recommend it as policy.

142. A force for evil?

Comment #55679 by Ian on July 12, 2007 at 1:25 am

What, we are not allowed to criticise writing style any more? Is that the rules? Or did you just decide that yourself? How self-righteous and arrogant is that then? Too much starch in your shirt, just maybe?

Those of you self appointed editors out there. How come you're so confident of having preserved the meaning of Doctor Grayling's words, if they are not clear? And if they are clear, why rephrase them?

Doctor Grayling is a highly trained philosopher, which means that he is sensitive to nuance and shades of meaning well beyond the vast majority. If he phrases something a certain way, you can be sure it stands as intended.

Meanwhile, having another erudite and clear thinker on our side should be counted a blessing whether you like his style or not.

Of course we have freedom to critique, but that comes with the danger of making a complete fool of yourself when you take on someone who knows so much better than you do.

143. Charles Darwin - Legacy

Comment #55425 by Ian on July 11, 2007 at 4:26 am

Thanks for posting this, it was good to see John Maynard Smith again. His book, The Theory of Evolution is a pearl of clarity.

Regarding Punctuated Equilibrium, I always felt that this was a solution in search of a problem to solve and this has changed nothing. Studies have shown that life's capacity to evolve far outstrips geology's to track it, so we shouldn't expect a complete fossil record. As for long periods of stasis, we should remember that crocodilians saw the rise and fall of the dinosaurs and then the rise of the mammals, so pointing to a family with a long period of morhplogical stasis cannot justify the assumption that the surrounding ecology has been stable all that time.

Prof Kauffman's sand pile analogy implies that speciation is subjet to chaos - in the modern sense of that word - and I have no great problem with that as an idea. However, I don't see this as challenging classical Darwinism, but refining it.

144. Floods are judgment on society, say bishops

Comment #53590 by Ian on July 2, 2007 at 6:20 am

Regarding the idea that the floods are punishment from god:

We have no need of this hypothesis.

Thanks to Pierre Simon LaPlace

145. Christopher Hitchens and Al Sharpton

Comment #53585 by Ian on July 2, 2007 at 6:03 am

Tyler Durden:

What do British atheists do while "God save the Queen" plays at sporting events, civic gatherings etc

Generally, we Brits treat the national anthem with proper disdain. It is rarely played at sporting events and never in theatres; not since my youth, when I remained properly seated.

Muslim extremists are welcome to burn the Union Jack, because it keeps people who make red and blue crayons in employment. It doesn't however, outrage us.

Finally, if I might, I'd like to introduce Braidwood's 1st law: Other people's patriotism is boring.

146. His word

Comment #51664 by Ian on June 24, 2007 at 2:49 am

the great teapot:

I listen regularly to Melvyn Bragg's In Our Time radio programme and don't recognise him from your description.

I recall no statement of religious opinion from Mr Bragg and the fact that he's had Professor Dawkins on twice, indicates that at least he's willing to listen, which is all we need.

Also, given that we've recently been treated to programmes on William of Ockham and Spinoza, I think he is giving an airing to ideas which normally muster on bookshelves.

More power to him, I say.

147. His word

Comment #51510 by Ian on June 23, 2007 at 7:24 am

I think some of you have read this wrong.

I think Baddiel is actually commenting on the response to The God Delusion. That the reaction misrepresents it; hence Baddiel finding parts of the book funny and his reminder that religion is no butterfly on the wheel.

Nevertheless, his 'ultra-darwinist' comments show that he does need to read The Selfish Gene and Susan Blackmore's The Meme Machine. Even if he is not convinced, he should get plenty of food for thought.

148. Man to die over insult

Comment #47157 by Ian on June 3, 2007 at 7:45 am

I have just sent the following to the Pakistani High Commission info@phclondon.org

Dear Sir,

I am writing to you out of concern over the plight of Younis Masih, a man from Lahore who has been sentenced to death for allegedly making derogatory remarks about the prophet Muhammad.

Judging from reports, Masih had asked a group of people to make less noise, because his nephew had just died. In response, these allegations were bought against him and he has been sentenced to death.

What I wish to ask you is whether any punishment is at all appropriate in this instance, even if he did insult the prophet - a charge surely based on hearsay and so hardly proven beyond doubt.

There can be no justice without compassion and the wisdom of establishing laws so open to abuse must also be questioned. So I ask you in the name of justice to free this man who has harmed no one and was acting in time of grief.

"The quality of mercy is not strained:
It droppeth as the gentle rain from Heaven upon the place beneath. It is twice blessed: It blesseth him that gives and him that takes." - The Merchant of Venice

Please show that the Pakistani government can give pause enough to prevent this injustice. This man does not deserve to die.

Yours Sincerely,

Ian Braidwood.

Please people, get in touch with with the Pakistani government. Don't let this continue.

149. Gul drops Turkey presidential bid

Comment #38159 by Ian on May 7, 2007 at 6:27 am

I'm encouraged by this and would add Turkey to my holiday destination list - not that that is at all relevant when we talk about people's freedom.

It's quite clear that huge numbers of the Turkish people value thier rights enough to stand up for them and they deserve our support.

After all, that is what this is all about: Whether people should be governed for their own benefit or be subjected to a regime where they count for nothing.

Democracy could fail these people, but an islamist regime cannot serve its proper function: that of serving its people.

150. Richard Dawkins in the Time 100

Comment #37086 by Ian on May 3, 2007 at 11:04 am

Hate the cartoon, I thought these illustrations were supposed to reveal something about the character 'hidden' in a photo. I guess it was cheap.

Choosing Behe was typical journalistic cynicism, but at least we'll never see him in the running for any meaningful award.