101. GOD VS. SCIENCE: A Debate Between Natalie Angier and David Sloan Wilson

Comment #91991 by Janus on November 29, 2007 at 5:00 pm

Sloan's argument is based on the premise that we should base our beliefs (and our evaluation of other people's beliefs) on what is right from an evolutionary perspective, which is nothing more than the good old naturalistic fallacy.

That religious beliefs might benefit the ones who hold them doesn't mean they're above criticism and ridicule. It's only a description of reality; you can't derive 'ought' from 'is'.

102. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #91908 by Janus on November 29, 2007 at 2:34 pm

About the article: I liked it, but it's all over the place. What does sexual jealousy have to do with whether a country's leader's religious affiliation should be a public matter?

About "cheating": I agree with the Professor, sexual jealousy is an instinct that was probably shaped by evolution, and that was preserved and strengthened by various religions. That said, I also agree with thegreatest that "cheating" is wrong in the sense that breaking an agreement between two people is wrong. Still, the Professor's article remains mostly valid, because most people think they're obliged to make such an agreement, and they usually believe that cheating is wrong because of the actual extramarital sex, not because a promise was broken.

103. Bankrolling Ali's Asylum

Comment #90992 by Janus on November 26, 2007 at 10:25 pm

Ahh... so, your true colors show now. YOU'RE ONE OF THEM!!!! ;)

I'm afraid so. :)

But even "we" who are annoyed with some of Sam's statements and beliefs are on the whole very happy he's out there fighting for our cause. I feel the same way about the RRS: There are lots of things they say and do that I don't approve of, but I sure am glad they exist.

104. Bankrolling Ali's Asylum

Comment #90985 by Janus on November 26, 2007 at 10:09 pm

Try sarcasm. Some of us have a sense of humor.

Right back atcha.

Go back and read some of the comments, particularly Jack Rawlinson's, he was over-the-top nutty.

Nope, sorry, I don't see any nuttiness. Jack is perfectly right.

105. Bankrolling Ali's Asylum

Comment #90981 by Janus on November 26, 2007 at 9:50 pm

The angry attacks on Harris are absurd. But thanks for putting everything in perspective for us Janus, your so wonderfully above it all.

Careful there, that was kind of mean-spirited.



If anything is absurd, it's your statement that we're throwing "one of our brightest stars under the bus". No one is doing anything of the kind, and that you think we are only demonstrates you're one of the neurotic worriers I was talking about.

106. Bankrolling Ali's Asylum

Comment #90980 by Janus on November 26, 2007 at 9:42 pm

All right, it's a challenge to Christians, a challenge made by reinforcing a negative stereotype about atheists.

I like Shuggy's idea. If Harris had said, "Rick may yet convince me that Christians are as moral and socially engaged as atheists", I'm sure everyone would have applauded!

107. Bankrolling Ali's Asylum

Comment #90972 by Janus on November 26, 2007 at 9:19 pm

*laughs*

In nearly every thread of this kind there's a bunch of alarmists worrying that the people on this site are too uncritical of Richard Dawkins and the other "champions" of atheism, that we're coming dangerously close to a dogmatic cult of personality.

But amusingly, the reverse is also true: There's another bunch of people who complain that we're too quick to criticize the things our champions say and do, that our attitude is too divisive and too mean-spirited.

At least, I hope it's a different bunch of people.

Either way, both worries are unfounded, in my opinion. I think what we have here is a very healthy mix of defense and criticism of the "new atheists". If there's a blight on the discussion that goes on here, it's the recurring suggestion that some of the posters are either dogmatic or mean-spirited.

108. Bankrolling Ali's Asylum

Comment #90875 by Janus on November 26, 2007 at 2:35 pm

Khiyal:

First, it is the postmodernist, multiculturalist left that shields Islam from criticism, but why mention atheists? Most of the shielding is done by moderate Christians, not by atheists.

Second, I agree that we should team up with the Christian right to fight Islam, even if reluctantly, but that doesn't mean we should suck up to them, or censor ourselves so as to not offend them, and it certainly doesn't mean we should reinforce negative (and false) stereotypes of atheists in order to flatter them.

Third, I at least am not offended, I'm annoyed that Harris has done something to hurt our cause, again.

Fourth, why should "whining" preclude donating, and vice versa?

109. Bankrolling Ali's Asylum

Comment #90840 by Janus on November 26, 2007 at 1:42 pm

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

As if it's not enough that most Christians already believe this bit of nonsense, one of our foremost representatives thinks it clever to repeat it.

I'm not sorry I donated to help protect Ms Ali, but I am sorry I had to do it through Sam.

110. Sunday School for Atheists

Comment #90624 by Janus on November 25, 2007 at 9:29 pm

The title annoys me, but it's a good article nevertheless.

And yes, very encouraging.

111. Taking Science on Faith

Comment #90526 by Janus on November 25, 2007 at 12:24 pm

No, that is not what Tegmark's model is about at all. It is about removal of laws by claiming that all mathematical structures represent real universes.

How do you proceed when reading a post? Do you, like, see a sentence you disagree with, immediately write your reply, then skip the next few sentences?

What you've said is pretty much exactly what I've said if you combine the sentence you've quoted with the one directly under it. I even made sure (or so I thought) you wouldn't misunderstand me by adding that even if you didn't separate Tegmark's theory into its two aspects, it wouldn't affect my original point. And yet you still managed to ignore all that (as well as my original point)!

You should research Davies' work further. It is precisely this kind of regress that he seeks to avoid.

His work? His work?! I'm sure Davies does useful research, but this particular idea of his doesn't qualify as science. There's no evidence, of course, but more than that, there's no mathematical model, there's not even a vague mechanism. It's science-fiction that may have a remote likelihood of being true in some form, one day.

If Davies wanted to avoid regress, he's failed. You didn't protest the first time I gave a short summary of his hypothesis, and now that you are protesting, all you can say is "research his work further"?

I think I have finally had it with this site.

I mean, to be honest, what is the point? Rather than discussing ideas, threads seem increasingly to be filled with political ranting, religious trolls, and now (the last straw for me), a series of frankly outrageous attacks on a scientist who has world-wide respect, and that (I would hope) will shock many who read this site.

If my attacks are so outrageous, why don't you demolish them with ease? Why do you only reply to a tiny fraction of my posts? Why did you ignore the posts of many people who replied to you in this thread? Why do you resort to selective quoting? Why do you misrepresent Davies' own words in the very article we're discussing?

And most importantly, why does the sole cause of your outrage seem to be that other people are attacking "a scientist who has world-wide respect"? Why does it matter that he has world-wide respect? Max Planck was and is much more respected that Davies ever will be, and yet he was a die-hard Christian. Should we therefore refrain from ridiculing Christianity?

112. Taking Science on Faith

Comment #90509 by Janus on November 25, 2007 at 11:38 am

steve99:

First, as garhung and Machinus and several other people have said, we're not misrepresenting Davies, you're the one misrepresenting him. What you wish he would say is not what he has said.

Yes, but his claim is that most scientists aren't agnostic about this. They take the rationality of the universe as a given. I think it is a fair claim.

Thank you, you've revealed another mistake of Davies': He conflates two different meanings of "the universe is rational."

If by that phrase he means "the entire universe can be understood by the human mind", then he's right that we should be agnostic about this claim, but he's wrong that most scientists believe this.
If by that phrase he means that "the entire universe must be in principle describable by mathematics, even if we humans aren't actually able to do it", then he might be right that most scientists believe this, but obviously wrong that we should be agnostic about this claim.

Depends entirely which multiverse model you choose. Some are certainly attempting to solve problem (1), like that of Tegmark.

No, you're confusing two different aspects of Tegmark's theory. Tegmark is saying two things:
- Our universe is a mathematical structure, there's no distinction between the "laws" of the universe and the universe itself, they are one and the same.
- Every possible mathematical structure exists, i.e. the level IV multiverse exists.

The first aspect solves problem (1) (why are there laws?), the second aspect solves problem (2) (why these laws?).

That's not to say that a theory that solves (1) and (2) simultaneously isn't possible, and you could argue that Tegmark's is one such theory, but it doesn't change the fact that, right now, as far as we know, they're two different problems, and conflating them as Davies does is a mistake.

He isn't. [saying that religion and science are on an equal footing]

Of course he is, read Tea Q's comment #90465.

If you mean that he doesn't actually believe that religion and science are on an equal footing, you're probably right, but that's what's he's saying nonetheless. I don't think Davies is stupid, I think he's dishonest. As I said, he's sucking up to the "spiritual" crowd (and I don't mean "spiritual" in the Sam Harris sense), and probably hoping to get another Templeton prize and/or sell more books by doing this.

Actually no. Some modern thinking about physics IS this weird. This is not crackpot thinking at all. It is part of the thinking of John Wheeler, mentor of Feynman, Kip Thorn, and Everett; one of the most significant physicists of the last century.

I said it would be perceived as crackpot thinking.

But since you mention it I'll address his idea itself. I don't know enough physics or mathematics to say if it's a valid theory in that sense, of course, so I won't even try. However, I can look at it from a purely logical point of view and see if it suffers from the same failings that he claims the "physical laws are the fundamental reality" hypothesis does, from an explanatory point of view. And Davies' hypothesis does have the same failings, it just hides it a bit better.

If saying that a certain level of complexity, such as the laws of physics, is fundamental, "just exists", and doesn't need an explanation, then how is it better to explain these laws by saying they were designed by beings that could only have evolved if these laws already existed? And even if that was possible, these beings could only have designed the laws if these same laws made it possible for the beings to modify them. How did these laws become such that they could be modified? Well obviously, they were modified to that they could be modified by these beings (who, remember, only exist in the first place because these modifiable laws were modified by those very beings).

I mean, c'mon. Perhaps mathematics allows for this kind of silly infinite regress, I don't know, as I said I won't even try to guess, but one thing is obvious: This hypothesis has no more explanatory power than, "It's turtles all the way down", or, "The laws of the universe just exist." It's not even a slight improvement.

No, I don't believe that is what he is doing. He is saying that some scientists have an unquestioning belief in certain principles that they haven't even considered challenging.

Maybe that's what he believes, but it's not what he's saying in this particular article (or in many others I've read). Is it because he's an idiot, a bad writer, or a dishonest SOB? I think the last possibility is the correct one, but hey, who knows?

113. Taking Science on Faith

Comment #90459 by Janus on November 25, 2007 at 7:51 am

is that science has its own faith-based belief system. All science proceeds on the assumption that nature is ordered in a rational and intelligible way. You couldn't be a scientist if you thought the universe was a meaningless jumble of odds and ends haphazardly juxtaposed. When physicists probe to a deeper level of subatomic structure, or astronomers extend the reach of their instruments, they expect to encounter additional elegant mathematical order.

*sigh* Davies pisses me off. Yes, I understand that he's explaining the necessity of methodological naturalism. But why is he sucking up to the anti-science crowd by saying science has its own "faith-based belief system"? It doesn't. A scientist could be agnostic about whether the universe is "rational", or even believe that it's irrational, and he would still be able to find the wonderful order that scientists have found thus far in our universe. It's just that making the methodological assumption that a phenomenon can be understood speeds up the process, because you can't test whether it's irrational anyway. It's like saying, "The universe might be rational, or it might be irrational, but regardless I'm going to see if I can figure out how it works. If it is irrational, well, I'll have wasted my time. If it is rational, I'll have discovered something new about the universe."
What's faith-based about that?

The multiverse theory is increasingly popular, but it doesn't so much explain the laws of physics as dodge the whole issue. There has to be a physical mechanism to make all those universes and bestow bylaws on them. This process will require its own laws, or meta-laws. Where do they come from? The problem has simply been shifted up a level from the laws of the universe to the meta-laws of the multiverse.

Hard to believe that Davies could make such a huge philosophical blunder. He's conflating two different questions about the laws of the universe, of which the multiverse hypothesis is only supposed to explain one.

The two questions are these:
1) Why is the universe complex and/or orderly rather than simple and/or chaotic?
2) Given that the universe is orderly, why is its order what it is rather than something else?

In other words, (1) Why are there laws? and (2) Why are the laws what they are and not something else?

Criticizing the multiverse hypothesis for shifting up the problem of why there are laws one level is silly, because the multiverse was never meant to solve that problem. The only question that the multiverse is meant to answer is (2), not (1).

And the multiverse does solve (2), in the same way that the existence of an incredibly large number of planets explains the amazing coincidence that the Earth is perfect to support the existence of life (which of course isn't an amazing coincidence at all, precisely because there are so many planets). The existence of many planets doesn't explain why there are planets in the first place, however, but no one says it does, just like no one says the multiverse explains why there are universes in the first place.

Clearly, then, both religion and science are founded on faith — namely, on belief in the existence of something outside the universe, like an unexplained God or an unexplained set of physical laws, maybe even a huge ensemble of unseen universes, too. For that reason, both monotheistic religion and orthodox science fail to provide a complete account of physical existence.

You just can't keep yourself from putting religion and science on an equal footing, can you Davies? What is this, more of Mooney's "framing"? Are you afraid you'd kill your chances of getting another Templeton prize if you said that orthodox science fails to provide a complete account of physical existence, while religion doesn't explain a damn thing?

It seems to me there is no hope of ever explaining why the physical universe is as it is so long as we are fixated on immutable laws or meta-laws that exist reasonlessly or are imposed by divine providence. The alternative is to regard the laws of physics and the universe they govern as part and parcel of a unitary system, and to be incorporated together within a common explanatory scheme.

Oh, so this is where this article leads to. Of course!
Doctor Davies' pet theory is that physical laws exist because they were shaped by the intelligent beings who live in the universe that these laws govern. The intelligent beings can exist in this universe because the laws are _just right_ to permit their existence, while the laws exist because the intelligent beings have modified them to make them _just right_.

And Davies thinks that's a more rational explanation than a set of physical laws that just exist.

No wonder he didn't mention his theory in this article. If he had, he'd be perceived as a crackpot by everyone who reads it.

But until science comes up with a testable theory of the laws of the universe, its claim to be free of faith is manifestly bogus.

Some scientists may be taking it on faith that the laws of the universe "just exist", but that's not a failing of science. Science is free of faith.

114. Frequently Asked Questions about the Ayaan Hirsi Ali Security Trust

Comment #89454 by Janus on November 20, 2007 at 7:58 pm

All right, Sam. I'm convinced.

I don't like "automatic" recurring payments of any kind, so I'll just donate a $120 every 12 months, starting now.

115. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #88666 by Janus on November 18, 2007 at 12:40 pm

This is all very confusing. Are we certain that Ayaan Hirsi Ali needs our money?

116. Secular Fundamentalists: There is no such thing...and the AAI conference doesn't make atheism a movement, either.

Comment #88276 by Janus on November 15, 2007 at 5:14 pm

That was very good.

The title's too long.

117. Allan Gregg interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #87245 by Janus on November 11, 2007 at 3:05 pm

It's not a theistic God versus an atheistic one, it's a theistic God versus a deistic one. In other words, a God who cares about us at some level.

118. Can we at least demand 'Secular Communion'?

Comment #86965 by Janus on November 10, 2007 at 5:34 pm

Here's a better idea: work together on common causes without silencing our disagreements.

Yes. Yes!! YESSSSSS!!!!!!!

:O

Finally, someone said it!

119. D'Souza - Nothing to Refute Here

Comment #86584 by Janus on November 9, 2007 at 4:51 pm

Excellent article, Kelly. And this is coming from the harshest critic of your previous one. :)

My only complaint is that you go a bit too fast in the next-to-last paragraph. Those of us who know what you're talking about understand perfectly (and nod fervently in agreement), but the rest of your readers would be helped by a few concrete examples and by an occasional repetition of the meaning of a sentence, but in different words. If you want to imitate someone when it comes to clarity, look to Richard Dawkins.

Also, the ending was a bit too abrupt.

Those are just nitpicks, though. Keep up the good work!

120. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #85407 by Janus on November 5, 2007 at 6:46 pm

Ah, I've been waiting for this. I hope we get lots of comments from theists on Youtube. :P

121. Response to Dinesh D'Souza op-ed

Comment #85403 by Janus on November 5, 2007 at 6:38 pm

Gasp! Have I been called an amateur? Well of course I'm an amateur, much more so than Kelly.

However, Corylus is obviously not. I wish had I read her little guide half a decade ago. Listen to her. :)

122. Response to Dinesh D'Souza op-ed

Comment #85342 by Janus on November 5, 2007 at 2:12 pm

As a retired professional newspaper editor, I am inclined to say that is a bunch of crap.

Okay, a certain degree of subtlety when it comes to insults.

123. Response to Dinesh D'Souza op-ed

Comment #85327 by Janus on November 5, 2007 at 1:44 pm

Looks like I'm being perceived as the stereotypical RRS hater, which is amusing considering I was among the few people on this website who applauded the RRS for the holy spirit denial thing on Youtube. Well, I guess it's my fault for posting that one-liner.

I do think that Kelly's article reads like a forum post. A good forum post, mind you, and one that I would be proud to be the author of, but it's written in a style that would make me flinch if I was reading it in my local newspaper. The same thing could be said about Sapient's reply to Michael Shermer, if anyone remembers that.

Here are two examples of what I'm talking about:

"While reading it, one must wonder if he is either a blatant liar or simply downright deluded. (Maybe this could be the D'Souza Dilemma: Dishonest or Deluded?)"

This is a childish insult. Yes, you're right, D'Souza is dishonest and deluded, but stating it so bluntly makes you look bad. Most importantly, if you have to insult him in such a way, do it at the end of a paragraph _after_ you've given evidence that he is in fact a deluded liar. It's not something you say in an article's introduction.


"The fact that anybody with even a shred of logic or knowledge of history would make it past his opening salvo without lighting it on fire is a miracle of its own."

First, it's obvious that this sentence is meant to sound clever and witty. It doesn't.
Second, same complaint as above. It makes you sound like you're flaming a troll on a forum. You should explain why it's crap, then say it's crap. Or even better, _imply_ that it's crap. A certain degree of subtlety is a must in professional writing.

124. Response to Dinesh D'Souza op-ed

Comment #85263 by Janus on November 5, 2007 at 11:36 am

I'm not one of those atheists who wish that the RRS would vanish because they somehow tarnish the reputation of atheists everywhere. I agree that every little bit helps, and the RRS has helped the cause of atheism more than a little bit. They certainly help it more than I do (or ever will).

The RRS' style is fine for blogs and podcasts, but now it looks like Kelly is hoping to get her stuff published by some papers. If she wants that to happen (and if it happens, if she doesn't want to tarnish our reputation, heh), she has to stop writing as if she were flaming a troll on a forum.

125. Response to Dinesh D'Souza op-ed

Comment #85246 by Janus on November 5, 2007 at 10:59 am

Oh, don't get me wrong, I agree with Kelly. It's just that the article is written amateurishly.

But, well, that's what you expect from the RRS.

126. Response to Dinesh D'Souza op-ed

Comment #85233 by Janus on November 5, 2007 at 10:32 am

Well, that was pretty awful.

127. The truth in religion

Comment #84213 by Janus on November 1, 2007 at 12:31 pm

There needs to be a series of articles written by rational atheists attacking the intellectual honesty of moderate religious believers. In other words, it's not enough to use the Harris tactic of claiming that religious moderation facilitates fundamentalism. Religious moderates are almost invariably obscurantist and dishonest thinkers, what Daniel Dennett calls "murkies", and they need to be criticized as such.

Discredit the moderates, and the fundies will fall with them, because of course Sam is right about them.

128. Why do we ignore the plight of ex-Muslims?

Comment #83542 by Janus on October 30, 2007 at 11:26 am

I don't have much to contribute to this thread, but I have to say that briancoughlanworldcitizen's repeated misrepresentations of Fanusi Khiyal's opinion strongly remind me of the kind of stuff that's found in reviews of The God Delusion. They make it painfully obvious that the person in question only understands what he wants to understand.

129. Don't write off religion - it can be the key to a stable family

Comment #82569 by Janus on October 26, 2007 at 6:48 pm

LOL, Cherry. Very close to the real thing.

130. Don't write off religion - it can be the key to a stable family

Comment #82543 by Janus on October 26, 2007 at 4:42 pm

Isn't it curious that religious moderates are so quick to misrepresent everything Dawkins and other forthright atheists say in a way they'd never allow themselves to in any other situation?

The difference between indoctrination and education is whether you use religion to try to open up debate or close it down.

No honey, the difference between education and indoctrination is that the former is the teaching of values and of facts, while the latter is the teaching of lies.

131. Sam Harris at AAI 07

Comment #82235 by Janus on October 25, 2007 at 10:59 pm

Janus.... When someone asks me what my religion is I say I don't have one. If they ask me whether I believe in God, I say no.

This inevitably leads to them saying "oh......so your an athiest" to which I reply "I guess you could call me that,,, but I don't really know what that means" at which time you mention similar things like what Sam says about being labeled a non-racist or non-astrolagist. We are obviously all athiests and if someone asks specifically whether we are or not then you have to say yes but I think it needs to be very clear to people that that word means nothing in terms of how we all think as a group and that it really isn't a philosophy of life as some people like to think.

So we can say we're atheists, but we shouldn't stop at that, we should also say what exactly it means, and that this isn't all that defines us as people.

That is a good point, albeit one that is crashingly obvious to most people who frequent this website.

But it's not the point that Sam is making.

Again I think Sam has hit the nail on the head in terms of there being a negative stigma attached to the label which is a conversation stopper and it is best to avoid it if possible and just deal with individual arguments as they arrise.

While it's true that there is a negative stigma attached to the word "atheist", this stigma exists because religious people fear disbelief in God, not because of the word itself. A stigma will be attached to any word that we choose, be it atheist or bright or sceptic or rationalist or humanist. For example, as many people have said, the phrase "secular humanist conspiracy" is already extremely common in Christian fundamentalist communities.

It's silly to be concerned with the feelings that labels evoke when it's the labeled concept that's at the root of these feelings. Disbelief in God isn't going to stop bothering believers if you call it something else... and calling it nothing at all isn't possible, as my parody above attempted to demonstrate.

I don't think it is necessary for us to band together and develop the tribal style mentality that is indicative of religious groups because that only makes us easy targets for stereotypes and misconceptions.

Think about what you're saying for a second. We've barely begun to band together. We weren't banding together at all a mere 10 years ago. Do you think that stereotypes and misconceptions about People Who Do Not Believe In Deities didn't exist a decade ago? Of course they did. Hell, if anything they were _more_ widespread and _more_ vicious than they are today.

Misconceptions and, dare I say it, hatred is going to exist with or without labels, and they will certainly continue to exist if we go under the radar, as Sam wishes us to. What we can do is what the gay movement did: Get into the public scene, as Sam is doing, but with greater presence, greater unity, and better PR. Homosexuals aren't gradually becoming more accepted by society because they stayed under the radar, they're becoming more accepted by _forcing_ society to notice them and to make a place for them. Gays weren't _let_ into the public sphere, they forced their way in.

And that's exactly what we've started to do. The New Atheists have gotten the "debate" over religion going, they're getting talked about, and thanks to them, atheism is becoming less and less of a fringe, eccentric position. Now all we need is support from the millions of regular atheists out there, and a little political power. In other words, we need a movement.

We need to band together without developing a tribal style mentality, and so far I would say we've succeeded admirably. Despite the alarmist crap that often gets spouted on this website and elsewhere, I've seen very, very little evidence of any such mentality. Atheists think of Dawkins et al as heroes, not leaders or gurus, and no one is calling Harris a traitor. We just think he's wrong.

132. Sam Harris at AAI 07

Comment #82221 by Janus on October 25, 2007 at 10:26 pm

Ooo, ooo!! Name names!!

I hereby forgo the use of names in the atheist cause! From now on, I will restrict myself to long winded descriptive phrases!

Are you with me, my fellow People Who Do Not Believe In Deities?

133. Sam Harris at AAI 07

Comment #82215 by Janus on October 25, 2007 at 10:08 pm

To use Dennett's word, it looks like we have some murkies among us.

134. Sam Harris at AAI 07

Comment #82192 by Janus on October 25, 2007 at 8:32 pm

So what do you anti-labeling people do when someone asks you if you believe in God or what your religion is?

135. Sam Harris at AAI 07

Comment #82180 by Janus on October 25, 2007 at 7:47 pm

RainDear:

That's the very thing about labeling: Once you accept a label, someone's going to make you responsible for all kinds of thing that are done under that label.

And that's the genius of a negative label like atheism: It's not logically possible to do anything because you don't have faith in a certain entity (or set of entities).

I find it a bit worrying how so many people (even inside this RD's forum of all places) seem to have this strange need for a strong, flawless intellectual leader.

Then again, perhaps we just want the people representing us on the public stage to be as perfect as they can be.

This whole thing of worrying that the budding atheist movement we have here might turn horribly, horribly wrong is getting ridiculously alarmist.

For some people there seems to be a strong emotional need to build their whole outlook on life on one word, atheism. Well, it won't take any of us very far. It's nothing but one reasonable, evidence-based opinion about one single topic. The whole word is pretty much meaningless, unless you happen to live surrounded by religious bullies.

Well, you've destroyed your own point. No one is building their outlook on life on atheism, because it's not possible to do so.


FreeThink52:

That's what is great about the ones that happen to be our champions, for the moment...they don't want to be.

You mean they don't want to be our leaders, which is fortunate for them because I've never met an atheist who wants one of them to become a leader.

Any competent and successful critic of religion automatically becomes one of our champions, that's unavoidable. And as repellent as many of you might think this is, it's not a bad thing either. There's nothing wrong with champions and heroes, you know. It's priests, gurus, and demagogues we don't want.

136. Sam Harris at AAI 07

Comment #82140 by Janus on October 25, 2007 at 6:23 pm

I don't think the ones proposing other names for ourselves understand what Harris is saying. He doesn't want to switch one label for another, he wants to get rid of ALL labels. He doesn't want us to call ourselves anything at all.

It's hard to believe he's saying something so stupid, but he is.

137. Does fundamentalist religion cause the rejection of evolution? or is it the other way around?

Comment #80212 by Janus on October 20, 2007 at 6:47 pm

Stupid. Evolution is hardly the only theory that is counter-intuitive. General relativity is counter-intuitive too, and how many people (even fundamentalists) don't accept GR? Only a tiny, tiny fraction of those who don't accept evolution. Why is that? Because GR doesn't conflict with Christianity, Islam, and Judaism.

138. God's honest truth?

Comment #79856 by Janus on October 18, 2007 at 6:24 pm

Sinbad:

All the applause for the Swedes is a good reminder of how often people want freedom for themselves but not for others.

Huh? No one here wants the freedom to make our children go to a school where they'll be taught those of our beliefs that are not supported by evidence (if any).

If those in power can dictate what (real or supposed) truths and values are taught in private schools parents pay for and are imparted to their children, the freedoms of religion, expression and association are essentially meaningless.

I'm sorry, how does freedom of religion, of expression, and of association entail the right to teach falsehoods to children?

And it wouldn't be "those in power" who would decide what gets to be taught to children, it would be the consensus of experts in their respective fields who would decide. Those in power would merely enforce that decision.

If the theologians and religious scholars of the word want their favorite religion taught to children, all they have to do is find evidence to support the claim that their religion is the correct one to force a consensus among the religious "experts" of the world. I wish them good luck.

What's to stop those in power not just from mandating that (say) YEC be taught not just in public schools, but in private schools as well?

The lack of evidence for young earth creationism, obviously. Of course I suppose we could imagine a future where the biologists, geologists, paleontologists, cosmologists, etc of the world are all deluded to a degree that they recommend that YEC be taught to children, but if such a scenario comes to pass humanity is fucked anyway.

The totalitarian and authoritarian tendencies of the Left remain as hideously intact as ever.

Clearly you are not, and have never interacted with, someone who has been indoctrinated to believe a religion at a young age and subsequently had to spend years extricating his mind from the lies and the emotional shackles that come with such an indoctrination.

Parents have no inherent rights to do anything to their children. Parents only have responsibilities. What "rights" parents have only exist as a consequence of these responsibilities. These responsibilities do not include using their children to insure the propagation of their religion.


Notice, by the way, that no one is arguing that children should be taken away from parents who indoctrinate them, despite what the article says about Dawkins. Obviously this would be too much of a breach of privacy, even if it was feasible, which it isn't. But at least these children will have a respite from the indoctrination during the time they spend at school.

139. God's honest truth?

Comment #79796 by Janus on October 18, 2007 at 2:53 pm

Discourse != Education


The right to speak the most ridiculous nonsense is one thing, the right of institutions to teach this ridiculous nonsense to children is another.

140. God's honest truth?

Comment #79764 by Janus on October 18, 2007 at 1:14 pm

Oh, wow! This is HUGE! A precedent has been set, and not only for public schools but for all schools!

And as the article implies, I doubt this would ever have happened if it wasn't for Muslim fundamentalists. Thank goodness for those lunatics!

I could be wrong but I sincerely doubt that Dawkins actually has such a "policy".

You're not wrong. Dawkins is against faith schools, but he wouldn't support a _law_ that _prohibits_ parents from teaching their false beliefs to their children. Rather Dawkins is about consciousness raising, making people aware that children have rights too. Specifically, they have the right to not be indoctrinated to believe propositions that are not based on evidence. He's trying to change the way society thinks about these things, not to enforce anything with laws and regulations.

141. Help Counter the New Atheist Crusade to 'Evangelize' America!

Comment #79453 by Janus on October 17, 2007 at 9:36 am

Sweet.

142. Sam Harris seems like a nice fellow, but very confused

Comment #77817 by Janus on October 10, 2007 at 5:18 pm

This thread reminds me of a pattern that I often see on forums populated by a majority of religious moderates: A debate between two or more opponents begins, builds up, becomes more heated (and often more interesting), until one poster decides to make a "feel good" post that can usually be summed up by something like this: "Ultimately we all agree, or we can at least agree to disagree, let's stop arguing and pretend that all our opinions are perfectly compatible. Now let us hug and be friends!"

This post is then followed by a dozen comments complimenting the "feel good" poster, each person adding his own little "feel good" platitude, until the thread dies and the debate remains unresolved (although precious few people are aware of this).

The comments in this thread must be the atheistic version of this phenomenon.


Let me make a series of statements, just to see if anyone out there agrees perceives some truth in them.


- Sam's opinion about the "atheist" label and an atheist movement is NOT compatible with the "There are many approaches to promoting atheism" mantra that we're all so fond of (myself included). He's not saying: Here's how I will proceed, he's saying, here's how we should all proceed (and in his reply: Those of you who criticized me sound like a cult).

- This hysterical disdain for "labels" (I can practically feel you shudder when you read that word) is ridiculous. Do you know what a label is? It's a word. A word is a symbol that stands for a definition. A definition describes something.
Do you know what "atheism" is? It's the word that means "disbelief in deities". Disbelief in deities is the one and only characteristic that all of us on this website and at IIDB and Pharyngula and Sam's website have in common.
Calling ourselves "atheists" doesn't limit us or control us or trivialize us. It's not the thought model of our opponents, it's not even a thought model, it's basic logic. It's like calling an apple "an apple". It states what we are with perfect accuracy and clarity, nothing more.

- I think I've read two dozen interpretations of what Sam said from people I know are open-minded and intelligent, and they're all different. Conclusion: Sam's thoughts in his speech were badly confused, whether intentionally or not.

- IanG's comment has almost nothing to do with what Sam said.



Edited at 10:43 EST (11/10/07) because phil rimmer's comment annoyed me.

143. Ban teachers from religious dress, Quebec group says

Comment #77618 by Janus on October 9, 2007 at 10:19 pm

Hmmm.

On one hand, people should have the right to dress as they wish.

On the other hand, we all know where the custom to hide women's bodies comes from: Oppressive, sexist Abrahamic religion. There's no reason to delude ourselves and pretend it's just another custom.

144. Ayaan Hirsi Ali: abandoned to fanatics

Comment #77458 by Janus on October 9, 2007 at 11:07 am

Maybe it is time we start to chip in somehow as well?

Agreed. I'm not that rich but I'd be willing to donate.

145. Sam Harris seems like a nice fellow, but very confused

Comment #77215 by Janus on October 8, 2007 at 7:33 pm

Uh, Sam did say that.

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/sam_harris/2007/10/the_problem_with_atheism.html

We should not call ourselves "secularists." We should not call ourselves "humanists," or "secular humanists," or "naturalists," or "skeptics," or "anti-theists," or "rationalists," or "freethinkers," or "brights." We should not call ourselves anything. We should go under the radar—for the rest of our lives. And while there, we should be decent, responsible people who destroy bad ideas wherever we find them.

146. Response to My Fellow 'Atheists'

Comment #77199 by Janus on October 8, 2007 at 6:18 pm

Well said, Jack.

147. Response to My Fellow 'Atheists'

Comment #77197 by Janus on October 8, 2007 at 6:09 pm

I am amazed at the reaction to Sam's comments. I think his response is completely un-necessary, as he spoke very clearly in the first place. If anything, the responses he has received underline many of the points he was making.

I would go further. I think there is an inherent danger in deliberately trying to form a 'movement'. What Sam stands up for is rationality. Let's use reason, then. Let's not try and form such a large group that we start believing and accepting things without question.

Just as you are accepting without question the assertion that forming a movement necessarily leads to dogmatism and irrationality?

148. Response to My Fellow 'Atheists'

Comment #77194 by Janus on October 8, 2007 at 6:05 pm

PZ has replied:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/10/sam_harris_seems_like_a_nice_f.php#more

149. Response to My Fellow 'Atheists'

Comment #77174 by Janus on October 8, 2007 at 4:30 pm

The reason Sam thinks he's being misunderstood is that his thoughts as stated in his speech were muddled and confused.

For example, what was PZ Myers supposed to think when he read this:

"We should not call ourselves anything. We should go under the radar--for the rest of our lives. And while there, we should be decent, responsible people who destroy bad ideas wherever we find them."


And this new reply does nothing to make Sam's point clearer and easier to understand. In fact, the point he's making now seems completely different from the point he was trying to make in his speech. Now he seems to be saying that emphasizing the fact that we're atheists when we're criticizing irrational ideas is stupid because atheists aren't the only ones who are against irrational ideas, religious people can be against certain irrational ideas too. Well, what can I say to that except DUH. No fucking shit Sam, I think we all know that, and no one has ever suggested doing such a thing. Why on Earth would we talk about atheism where stem cell research is concerned? On the other hand, there are certain topics where atheists stand pretty much alone, in which case it would certainly be appropriate to emphasize the fact that atheists aren't a negligible minority, and an atheist movement would certainly be useful to support that assertion.

The rest of Sam's reply is an expression of his paranoia about the forming of an atheist community and movement; apparently he fears that such a movement might turn into a "cult". As if movements always turned into cults.

Sam doesn't want atheists to form a recognizable union under the name "atheists" or any other name, but he's yet to produce a coherent argument to support this.

150. In honour of Dan Dennett

Comment #77069 by Janus on October 8, 2007 at 10:59 am

The author,

this is what I meant when I said that you seem to base your knowledge of Dawkins' and Dennett's writings on Gould's misrepresentations. Dawkins and Dennett aren't "ultradarwinists"; they aren't "fundamentalists"; they don't believe that evolution always works in slow, gradual degrees (well, they do, but that doesn't mean that the rate of change is constant!); they don't believe that natural selection explains "practically everything" in the biological world.