101. The Atheist Delusion: a pisspoor presentation

Comment #12073 by Jared on December 10, 2006 at 7:23 am

On the topic of having a "no idiots allowed" thread, I'm going to have to say that I also disagree.

I support the banning of any idiots who make themselves extremely troublesome. Anything further than this, I see as counter to the purpose of having a website such as this one.

I do not think that we stand to benefit. While I recognize that the many people who come here have many differing points of view, I think that we would be doing ourselves a disservice by isolating the "logical" amongst us from the illogical. We'd be narrowing the breadth of opinions to which we are exposed. Again, I'm not saying that all Dawkins fans, all atheists,all Brights, etc. think the same way...but we would by definition have a narrower perspective than the many other sorts of people who come here.

I'd be afraid that, regardless of how "logical" their points are, we'd still end up excluding the faithful in such a discussion. At least, it would CLEARLY be seen as an attempt to do so. And even if all reasonably logical people, regardless of faith, managed to get into the thread after proving themselves, what of the newcomers?

What of the people who, say, will be receiving TGD as an Xmas present, the people who haven't yet made up their minds on how they feel and would like to read and interact to come to an informed decision? If we are keeping our best thinking to some sort of exclusive thread, what good will it do those people?

I, for one, would rather suffer several fools in this case for the possibility of helping even one more person learn to use logic and reason and think for themselves. But that's just my 2 cents. I'll keep coming and posting on these articles either way.

Cheers!

102. The Atheist Delusion: a pisspoor presentation

Comment #11973 by Jared on December 8, 2006 at 6:04 pm

Re: Comment #11965 NormanDoering
"We need a Deepak Chopra satire now."

We have one. He's called "Deepak Chopra."

/That's right...I went there :)

103. Ministers to ban creationist teaching aids in science lessons

Comment #11823 by Jared on December 7, 2006 at 1:19 pm

Funny how it's the Lib Dems who seem to be talking about this most. Now, I'm not British and so have not had very much experience with British politics in the short time that I've lived here, so I apologize if I'm making any obviously poor statements.

But I guess, based on what I've read about them, for ANY party to be coming to the defense of rationalism, the Lib Dems seem the most logical choice. Though I don't know enough about them to say how often I agree or disagree with their policies, they do have at least an air of "enlightenment" values ingrained in their party platform.

It makes me wish for representation of a similar viewpoint in congress back home in the States. But we've got just our two parties, sadly, and not much wiggle room in the middle.

Well, politics aside, good news here! Let's hope we can keep it up.

104. A man who believes in Darwin as fervently as he hates God

Comment #11817 by Jared on December 7, 2006 at 1:08 pm

Sorry if this double posts, I seem to have timed out while writing! And, in that vein, sorry for the essay...

I think it's quite funny how he says that Darwinism, "only 147 years after its inception, is already looking rather flawed and careworn," yet the best example he can give of how "cumulative change in every case is being challenged" (emphasis mine) is the "evo-devo school, which believes that sudden change can occur within species within a single generation." It shows that he has very little true understanding of evolution!

He's getting Darwinian evolution confused with that parody of it often dragged out in creationist circles: the slow, inflexible, "random" idea. He's also mistaken the disagreements between evolutionary scientists as somehow demonstrative of the failure of Darwinian theory rather than indicative of its further refinement and development. He seems to view science's unwillingness to stick to old "truths" when new evidence comes about as weakness rather than as the great thing about science that separates it from dogmatism. Perhaps this reveals the side on which Liddle is more comfortable living!

What he does not recognize is that, even IF the "evo-devo" school is true and change CAN happen rapidly, the animals who receive this change (and therefore the mutated genes that caused it) WILL NOT survive unless they have more success at reproducing than others of the same species.

We've all seen some pretty amazing "sudden" changes from one generation to the next. You need only think of mutations like polydactyly, humans born with "tails" or tons of extra body hair. Each of those things would be, in and of itself, a dramatic change in a short period of evolutionary time. It doesn't always take a slow rewriting of the genetic code for big changes to occur. The fact is that the deciding factor on whether these changes are "successful" or not is the very heart of Darwin's theory: natural selection! If any change (big, little, helpful, harmful, indifferent) doesn't out replicate non-mutated versions of itself, it either continues as an inert and "neutral" mutation (think different eye colors) or it gets out performed and, by sheer reproductive force, booted out of the gene pool. Even "neutral" mutations could, theoretically, have a time to shine if something in the outside world suddenly causes them to be favored. But these concepts just don't jive with Liddle's all-or-nothing "here today, gone tomorrow," conceptions of Darwin's theory.

It's quite funny how Liddle mocks any points on which Dawkins is "non-scientific," yet simultaneously mocks his off-the-cuff answers to questions for which there is no way of developing empirically testable methods (eg. the question of what would "replace" religion, were it to go). It's hard to create valid scientific answers to non-scientific questions! That's sort of the whole POINT of science!

Similarly, he acts as if his own wishy-washy ideas are somehow better. But at heart it's simply a misunderstanding of the science. The whole section where Liddle presupposes that humans being able to act "against" their genes would be counter-Darwinian ignores the simple fact that sometimes structures originally "intended" for one use get co-opted and put to quite different uses. I think Dawkins has several examples of this in "The Blind Watchmaker," which I don't have near me and therefore cannot reference. Off the top of my head, the multiple uses for tails comes to mind as a suitable example.

Were it true that our brains were evolved "for" going against genetically determined ideas, then of COURSE the actual act of going against genes would be "determined" in the way that Liddle presumes. But, since it is most likely that our brains evolved this way "for" other reasons, such as pattern recognition, decision making, storing of cultural knowledge/learning, speech, and sexually selected traits, there is no reason to say that the traits that help in THOSE ways cannot also help in a "perverse" or "unintended" way to help us work against simple selection.

And, quite glaringly, Liddle doesn't even mention the idea that, in the not-too-distant future, humanity will likely be able to modify its own genetic future and direct a new form of artificially selected evolution.

But then again, I can't expect too much recognition of such details in a non-scholarly. journalistic article. Which, I suppose, begs the question: what good is it to have journalistic reviews, good or bad, written by people without the faintest clue about the subject on which they are writing? I'm not trying to put down journalism on the whole, but if you're going to review a book like this, I should think you could at least familiarize yourself with the concepts involved!

105. Book a Day

Comment #11741 by Jared on December 7, 2006 at 2:30 am

"Dawkins's damning arguments should make any thinking person see reason."

Best line in the piece, and one of the best lines in any article written about the book so far.

Too bad there's a plain shortage of "thinking" people!!

106. The God Delusion in Private Eye

Comment #11704 by Jared on December 6, 2006 at 4:57 pm

I'm very disappointed not to see "The Extended Dawkotype" on that Xmas gift list. It's certainly number one on mine!

107. When Atheists Have Their Say (5 Letters)

Comment #11702 by Jared on December 6, 2006 at 4:08 pm

Yorker -

Following through on that Google search (for "DMathew1") is quite interesting and could provide some assistance in your diagnosis.

I don't wish to provide any particular links to be accused of selection bias. It's best to get the whole picture.

I'd love to see the forum you speak of! I have an intuition that it should exist, and that it doesn't care about us. That's good enough for me.

108. When Atheists Have Their Say (5 Letters)

Comment #11675 by Jared on December 6, 2006 at 1:09 pm

For anyone who thinks I'm all "hot air":

A simple Google search on "DMathew1," the name linked to the website Mr. Mathews used to provide, will turn up the relevant information. He is called a troll on no less than three boards (counting this one, of course), and possibly more as some of the boards are no longer functional and only exist in Google.

I refuse to debate trolls. I take Yorker's stance of not talking to them. If that's condescending and rude, so be it.

109. When Atheists Have Their Say (5 Letters)

Comment #11666 by Jared on December 6, 2006 at 12:29 pm

FSW-
Perhaps you would be a bit more forgiving if you looked back not only through OUR posts but through the various other sites where Mr. Mathews has posted. He trolls, and I've found evidence of it on sites both theistic and non-theistic. His position is always this same, personal theology and it annoys everyone on both sides. He does not answer questions. He patronizes, puts people down, and often makes self-contradictory statements.

If we seem blunt or rude to him, it is with good reason. I concede that sometimes the people on this site tend to answer harshly, to condescend, and to insult. I find that regrettable, myself, and only get to that level when pushed there. Even my insults are usually phrased politely :)

What Kingasaurus said two posts above me is correct. Mathews doesn't come here to debate. He comes here to disrupt. Though there may be few other theists here, which I think is probably quite natural given what sort of site this is, it's unwise to use him as an example of the persecuted minority. Mathews DESERVES to be ignored.

110. The delusion of Christianity: Fairy tales that changed the world

Comment #11441 by Jared on December 4, 2006 at 4:00 pm

Yorker -

Yes, I agree with your DNA tactics. After that loony Mathews nearly drove me from the site, however, I had to come back and address him once more. At first I did so anonymously, but then I realized that there was little point in pretending and that, regardless of whether the things I planned to say were polite or not so much so, I should at least say them in my own name.

But after that long rebuttal on the previous page, I am returning to my previous DNA position on DM. I've said all I could ever possibly say to him.

So, enough about all of that.

Derwent, I've never seen any particular rebuttals to the non-curing of amputees, although I can imagine the sorts of things that might be proffered as such:

"You can't expect miracles, god will only heal those who believe but do not beg"

"God must work within the rules he has set up. Limbs cannot be regrown, although diseases can be cured. He works in mysterious ways."

"To regrow a limb would be an obvious act of god, which would thus constitute proof and deny the need for faith. He keeps amputees limbless as a reminder to the faithful"

...and other such nonsense. ;)

111. The delusion of Christianity: Fairy tales that changed the world

Comment #11205 by Jared on December 3, 2006 at 6:04 pm

I don't know what's cuter, Anonymous! That you think that your arguments are good enough to, how you say, "pwn" this whole site, or that you think that anything you've said is new to anyone who visits here. Heck, both things are just too cute to bear! But thanks for trying :)

112. Our Teapot, which art in heaven

Comment #10106 by Jared on November 27, 2006 at 4:55 am

Re: Tea (Comment# 9994)
"So, if you wonder what supports the Earth, and I tell you it's a giant turtle, you're not goint ask me what supports the goddamn turtle???"

Why, how silly! Don't you know?

It's turtles all the way down!

:-P

113. Why Are Atheists So Angry? A Debate with Dennis Prager

Comment #9990 by Jared on November 26, 2006 at 8:29 pm

Re: Currency of Faith

Dangit, who let Mel Gibson in here?

114. Why Are Atheists So Angry? A Debate with Dennis Prager

Comment #9984 by Jared on November 26, 2006 at 8:19 pm

Folks, the whole point isn't about "conversion" or who is right or wrong. The Harris/Prager debate was about logic, and who could use it better to explicate and defend their point of view. That is as far as it really goes.

As for the rest, the point is that WHATEVER religious path you choose (even the lack of religion) there is no reason why that choice shouldn't be open to debate and discussion. It should be just as free as any other choice that people make, from the choice in snack foods, political party, or literary genre. We can discuss and debate all of those things, and no one's feelings get hurt, so why is it different when it comes to god?

Surely, freedom of religion is not harmed by thinking and questioning and discussing beliefs. If anything, discussion might serve to INCREASE the pool of choices you see as fitting your world view. I would never suggest to anyone that they cannot believe the things they choose to believe. All I (and MOST of the atheists/secularists/rationalists I know) would ask is that we stop being so sensitive about the topic. That hypersensitivity to faiths and the differences between them causes far more harm than good.

And, Re: David Mathews...

There is no point in continuing to answer your posts. At all. If your perspective is simply that humanity is doomed and, therefore, nothing else matters, then neither you or I should waste the time we have remaining any further in discussing these issues as they are all ultimately as irrelevant as what brand of soap I use in the shower. While I will continue to try to make whatever time I have as comfortable as possible for those that I can, you can continue to whinge and bemoan a fate which is likely beyond either of our lifespans. That's what freedom of choice is all about. Good day.

115. Our Teapot, which art in heaven

Comment #9955 by Jared on November 26, 2006 at 6:32 pm

I'm starting to understand the harshness of tone that people find in The God Delusion.

It's precisely the tone in which I've begun to think, due to encountering the same arguments over and over again, disproving them over and over again, only to find them BACK the next day.

I know how James Randi feels whenever he hears from his "woo woo" believers. It'd take a "saint," if you'll pardon my use of the word, to be patient enough to withstand the repetitive onslaught of the garbage that these men face on a daily basis.

Challenge the LOGIC of our statements. Find specific proofs. Reread the EARLIER attempts to do so to avoid repetition! ANYTHING but another article that says the same stuff!

116. Why Are Atheists So Angry? A Debate with Dennis Prager

Comment #9888 by Jared on November 26, 2006 at 9:59 am

Mr. Mathews:

I put the question to you baldly. If extinction is imminent, how is belief in a god any better than the lack thereof?

117. Creation vs. Darwin takes Muslim twist in Turkey

Comment #9881 by Jared on November 26, 2006 at 9:30 am

http://www.privateislandsonline.com/

...Just in case :)

118. Why Are Atheists So Angry? A Debate with Dennis Prager

Comment #9876 by Jared on November 26, 2006 at 9:14 am

I don't know why I'm bothering, but...

Mr. Matthews, your arguments hold no water. If our inevitable extinction is so pressing upon you that you insist that there is no point even discussing anything, then what are you doing here?

Certainly, science has been responsible for creating "bad" things. It has, and continues to, create the means by which wars are fought. That is because science, like most other tools, goes where the money leads it in many cases. During wartime, it is FAR more likely for science that contributes to the effort to find funding.

Science does not exist in a bubble. It is just as affected by politics, ideology, and even (at times) religion as any other human endeavor. There were far more "average" people complicit with the Nazi regime than there were scientists. Let's bring your logic to its conclusion, shall we?

Scientists worked with Nazis
Nazis are Evil
Therefore, Scientists are evil

Why not:

Air and water kept Nazis alive
Nazis are evil
Therefore, air and water are evil.

It's almost the same proof, isn't it?

If you're so concerned about our impending extinction, then DO something about it. Science certainly is. It's not the majority of scientists who deny global warming. It's not the scientists in the US who believe that the rapture is imminent and that, therefore, any thing we can do to speed up the coming of the end times is a good thing.

Not all scientists are good. Not all religious people are bad. If you believe that either of those groups is entirely one way or another, you're a naive human being. If you think that the average atheist thinks anything of the sort, the odds are you just plain don't understand our position. Certainly there are those who follow blindly, but I'll guarantee you the percentage is far, far fewer than the percentage of the same in any given religion.

You speak of the wars, but rarely of their reasons for happening. You blame science, but never those who pressure science or who fund it. Maybe we are doomed to extinction. But if we survive, you can bet your a** that science will be responsible, not prayers and not your god. Good day.

119. Doubters do it from the pulpit

Comment #9814 by Jared on November 26, 2006 at 5:32 am

The most interesting thing here is that bit about the trinity. If you read it carefully, it comes with the automatic presumption that god exists and that this tripartite god is the correct one. In fact, his argument sounds much more like a literary/textual one and not one applicable to reality. In terms of story writing, that certainly is an interesting way to prevent man from defining god one way. But what in the day-to-day world gives any credence to this idea?

It's sort of like taking an assumption to prove a claim. The argument is something like this:

Assume there is a god.
God leaves no clear evidence in the world
Therefore any god must be undefinable
The christian god is triune
Therefore, the christian god is not clearly defined
Since any god must be an undefinable god
Therefore, the christian god must exist

It doesn't take much to see that the conclusion doesn't necessarily come from the argument.

120. The New Atheism

Comment #9743 by Jared on November 25, 2006 at 8:22 pm

Wait...we DON'T want atheist priests? Hmm. Could have fooled me ;)

In all seriousness, this is just another example of the inability the faithful have to deal with any idea that DOESN'T promote indoctrination. I'm fairly certain that most of these "New Atheists" don't propose, say, knocking down churches or forceably removing believers. Some of them even promote -gasp!- the TEACHING of religion at an early age. But not just ONE religion. ALL of them, under the aegis of the statement: "This is what some people believe."

I'm sure that none of these so-called "militant" atheists would promote the need to convert anyone who, after such an education, came to the conclusion that they liked the Christian viewpoint and decided to follow it.

What the "New Atheists" would support is CRITICIZING that choice and questioning the logic of that decision. It's not as if, assuming that believer couldn't make a good logical argument for their position, the "New Atheists" would revoke the new believer's right to choose! They only ask for the right to DEBATE and DISCUSS religion. Do they think that getting this right may, eventually, bring about an "End of Faith?" Yes, but they also would likely open that "belief" up to debate as well!

The fact that the Christian publications and the mainstream media are reporting on this "movement" with greater frequency and in such length is a clear-cut sign that they are threatened by it. And that, to me, is a very good thing. They should be!

The funniest part of this article is that, aside from the last bit and a few other exceptions, it almost seems to AGREE with "New Atheism!" Were I a casual believer happening to read this piece, I just might be inclined to say "Hmm, this doesn't sound half bad!" Talk about shooting yourself in the foot, eh?

121. Why Are Atheists So Angry? A Debate with Dennis Prager

Comment #9739 by Jared on November 25, 2006 at 8:02 pm

Well, I tried my damnedest to remain neutral, ignore all other feelings I have about the issue, and judge each side of the argument solely on the basis of this debate.

The conclusion?

Prager loses. I think that his points are quite often more assumptive and specious. He almost never argues to Harris's points and also commits the sweeping generalization that "secular" societies lose their will to live without EVER demonstrating statistics to back him up OR considering whether these societies turned "secular" in isolation or as a result of some enforced atheism such as that under Communism.

He calls people who have only one child "selfish," without bothering to ask if any of these people have the economic means to support more than one child or even the one child they have! All of his statements are based on hunches and do not come backed by evidence. He weasels his way out of his fallacial argument about the need for belief in God proving God's existence.

I don't know. I suppose I never could remove my biases from my evaluation and it was likely foolish to try. It just really seems to me that Prager's logic was more slippery and flawed than Harris's. Whether anyone actually holding neutral belief about their topic would agree with me is another story, but I'm hopeful that they would.

122. Creation vs. Darwin takes Muslim twist in Turkey

Comment #9698 by Jared on November 25, 2006 at 3:26 pm

Are there still islands for sale somewhere? Because perhaps all of us can pool our money and purchase one to set up a rationalist nation of our own and get away from all of these non-thinking loons! We could even lure away much of the scientific and intellectual community, without which the rest of the nations would be lost and forced to moderate their stances to ask us to return!

(If only it were that easy, right? Well, I can dream at least...)

123. How Predictable: Richard Dawkins Supports Eugenics

Comment #9696 by Jared on November 25, 2006 at 3:19 pm

I'm beginning to understand how the other side does its dirty deeds. They disagree with Dawkins, but are too afraid, incapable, or intellectually lazy to actually take his logic to task in any way. I have no doubt that someone who fits neither of those three categories would be capable of making an interesting rebuttal to The God Delusion, this piece about eugenics, or anything else that he has written.

However, as Dawkins's logic is generally QUITE good and his arguments are very well thought out and executed, rebutting with selective quoting, mischaracterization, and out-and-out ad hominem attacks just aren't going to cut the mustard.

Sadly, a lot of readers will take these clowns' word for it and disregard the actual arguments Dawkins makes, which is a shame. While I happen to agree, for the most part, with Dawkins, I'd be quite happy to read a REAL rebuttal with good logic. After all, we rationalists shouldn't just take ANYONE's word as truth, on any subject. Besides, I'm confident that Dawkins's logic is strong enough to come out on top anyway.

124. Reptiles of the Mind -- Giving Thanks for Rational Atheists

Comment #9348 by Jared on November 24, 2006 at 2:36 pm

Re: The Article
"(I'm not an atheist, although I'm the proud, loving, and grateful son of an atheist mother. She has spent many years combating the religious right - as have I, in many posts like this early one on fundamentalists hijacking pharmacies, and my favorite - "Was The Universe Intelligently Designed ... By Satan? I also have Jews, Catholics, and Southern Baptists in my family tree. This is the Melting Pot, after all. )"

Isn't this just another version of the old chestnut people pull out when accused of making a racist statement (or a sweeping generalization about a group to which they don't belong), the ever-popular "One of my best friends is X, so therefore I'm not racist and am qualified to discuss this topic!"

125. Reptiles of the Mind -- Giving Thanks for Rational Atheists

Comment #9320 by Jared on November 24, 2006 at 12:42 pm

Thanks for posting this, Josh. I thought it might get the board fired up (again).

This article is rather silly, overall. I agree with what you all have said. This guy calls Dawkins and Harris intellectually dishonest because they don't have any empirical data to support their claims. Yet he does not once quote Dawkins' book, not ONCE, with anything that backs up the assertion that Dawkins suggests we be intolerant of religion.

As has been previously stated, Dawkins merely thinks that the faithful should not be so sensitive about their faith and that the claims of religion should be criticized the same way that any other claims about the world are criticized.

I don't think (though I may be wrong) that Dawkins suggests that being rid of religion would end all wars. As I recall, he just suggests that it would strip the impulses towards justification of wars/genocides of their infallible religious cloaking and make there be one less excuse for such atrocities. Not to mention that the "believers" would no longer feel compelled to obey on religious grounds.

I would love an article that actually deals with Dawkins arguments instead playing the "fundamentalist atheist" card without any proof. These authors probably COULD quote bits and pieces of the text that would back up their assertions. It just makes them look weak when they don't do so and yet don't feel it hypocritical to call Dawkins and Harris "dishonest."

126. God Delusion chosen as his Book of the Year

Comment #9114 by Jared on November 23, 2006 at 5:14 pm

I think this blurb is a reversal of the old axiom "damning with faint praise." This is a case of "praising with faint damns" in my opinion, and overall a positive notice (considering TGDs inclusion as a Book of the Year).

Also, re Yorker (Comment #9110):
" He writes clearly and avoids the use of pseudo-intellectual, post-modernistic claptrap often used by lesser authors in this field."

I could not have said it better, myself. I'm currently reading for an MA in Film Studies, and the VAST majority of texts I have to read are full of almost NOTHING but completely unproven assumptions couched in the same "pseudo-intellectual, post-modernistic claptrap."

I even went so far, in one class, to make this comment:

"Why is it that I can read books about string theory, quantum mechanics, and natural selection and understand EVERY word, yet can't get through one page of an essay on psychoanalytical film Theory without having to read each paragraph six times? Can it possibly be that much more complicated?"

To my surprise, the professor actually liked that I said it and admitted a degree of skepticism towards Grand Theory himself.

127. Dawkins hits back

Comment #9079 by Jared on November 23, 2006 at 3:15 pm

Can it be? A review of Dawkins NOT ending with the obligatory carrot tossed to the faithful? A reviewer who, far from finding Dawkins "evangelical," says his tone is actually AMUSING and doesn't let it detract from the clear logic of his points?

No. I'm too skeptical to accept this! I'll need proof :-P

128. New CFI Office in Washington D.C.

Comment #9038 by Jared on November 23, 2006 at 9:46 am

Re: Paul Caira (Comment #9027):

The Rushdie speech was, to me, the absolute best episode of Point of Inquiry yet. He expresses so many things that I think a lot of us would love to say, only he does it so much more eloquently than we could, and with such clear logic.

Great episode, and a great podcast all around.

129. New CFI Office in Washington D.C.

Comment #8924 by Jared on November 22, 2006 at 8:46 pm

I wonder if CFI-DC will have any particular need for someone with an MA in Film Studies next year when I get back to the States...

All joking aside, this is wonderful news. I hope they succeed. We rationalists (however else we define ourselves) need an organization to speak with our voice in the halls of power. It's the only way we can stem the tide of faith-based policy and reaffirm the need for separation of church and state. I wish them well.

130. Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and E.O. Wilson on the gospel of science

Comment #8726 by Jared on November 22, 2006 at 5:22 am

These arguments largely boil down to a style-over-substance fallacy. Because Dawkins and Harris are vehement and uncompromising, their logic is flawed. I've yet to see anyone legitimately take either person's arguments to task, but maybe that's because using logic and reason is beyond the scope of most journalistic articles and reviews and will have to be left to academic papers.

I don't think Dawkins argues that we should BAN religion. I think he hopes that people will learn to let them go, and I KNOW he dislikes people spreading religion onto the young when they can't reason their way out of it yet...but I don't think he ever says "WE MUST WIPE OUT THE BELIEVERS!" as this reviewer seems to think.

People really cannot accept criticism of faith...it's getting a bit silly. Everything can be criticized and should have to defend its position. Science and reason are up to the challenge. Is God?

131. Atheism, not religion, is the real force behind the mass murders of history

Comment #8723 by Jared on November 22, 2006 at 5:09 am

Unfortunately, whether D'Souza is a paid tool of a neocon group has no impact on his arguments.

Thankfully, his arguments are vapid and poorly reasoned, so there isn't even a need to resort to any ad hominem attacks.

They ARE convenient though, aren't they? This guy and his ridiculous ideology are on their way out. The neocons came to power riding the horse of moral outrage, but after six years of control, the people have tired of their shenanigans.

The neocons made the same mistake that almost every group makes when they take power: they forgot the fact that most of the people don't CARE about their greater agenda, and forgot that the trick that got them in was mere moral outrage, a fickle friend if ever there was one.

The best part here is how D'Souza basically refutes his own argument. To whit:

"The problem with this critique is that it exaggerates the crimes attributed to religion, while ignoring the greater crimes of secular fanaticism. "

Precisely. FANATICISM is the problem, whether secular or not.

"In particular, the moral teachings of Jesus provide no support for - indeed they stand as a stern rebuke to - the historical injustices perpetrated in the name of Christianity"

That may well be, but that DID NOT stop people from DOING injustice in the name of Christ, nor did it prevent a large enough percentage of fellow-travelers from letting these acts go on. Yet-

"The crimes of atheism have generally been perpetrated through a hubristic ideology that sees man, not God, as the creator of values."

and

"Whatever the motives for atheist bloodthirstiness, the indisputable fact is that all the religions of the world put together have in 2,000 years not managed to kill as many people as have been killed in the name of atheism in the past few decades"

Says who? Where is the proof? I thought D'Souza were arguing that it was fanaticism, and not mere atheism. When did ANY of those people kill in the NAME of atheism? The example does not carry over.

A is an atheist
A kills group B
Therefore A kills B because A is an atheist

That logic makes as much sense as this:

A wears lederhosen
A kills group B
Therefore A kills B because A wears lederhosen

Picking Atheism as the one salient trait, whether it is actually applicable or not, to apply to the mass murderers of the 20th century DOES NOT mean that that common trait is the reason for their actions. And D'Souza knows it. He points to ethnic and economic conflict as the main source of trouble, yet discounts the role of ethnic or economic concerns in his slap to the face of atheists

It is exactly this sort of mischaracterization that we need to FIGHT against. I hope that the Christian Science Monitor (which is typically not a terribly biased newspaper despite its name) is flooded with letters to the editor about this piece, or at least that it publishes an editorial from the opposite side.

I've had it with people placing a lack of faith on the same grounds as religion. Had it with coddling the majority by pretending that its ONLY religion that keeps people in line, as if all we non-believers are immoral heathens and most people couldn't help themselves without "god's moral code." This is the sort of attitude that needs to be changed. We have to get more vocal before people like this force us under for good.

(Sorry for the length...I'm just utterly flabbergasted. /Rant off.)

132. BEYOND REDUCTIONISM: Reinventing The Sacred

Comment #8580 by Jared on November 21, 2006 at 6:31 pm

Re: johnC (Comment #8548)
"So reductionism can mislead; it can also be enlisted in the cause of mischief"

Of course it can. So can EVERYTHING. Literally any theory, any concept, any ideology, or any truth-seeking mechanism can be used for wicked means. It doesn't make an approach invalid to suggest that it can be used for ill if a practitioner is so inclined or if the concepts involved are poorly understood.

But, really, I'm just pulling at straws here. I can't say I would advocate an either/or position on the ideas presented in this article and agree, mostly, with your view that they are complimentary.

Heck, I'd be pleased with just about any rational discourse that helps dethrone religions and personal gods, so long as it can defend its position or, if not, give way to another more rational position. That's what this is all about, in the end.

Cheers.

133. A Free-for-All on Science and Religion

Comment #8578 by Jared on November 21, 2006 at 6:18 pm

As much as I hate to say it, I too am fairly certain that religion isn't going away and we're largely dreaming if we think that it is.

But to that, I say...what is WRONG about dreaming? What's wrong with having a lofty goal? Lofty goals are what make long-term endeavors sustainable. If your goals are all short-sighted, your movement falls apart once those goals have been reached.

We should be aiming high, not because we realistically expect to hit the target, but because ANY target closer to our goal than where we currently stand is an improvement.

I think that the rationalist world view, skepticism, reason, naturalism...all of that...can and SHOULD be recognized and accepted. If we can get to a point more people see that worldview as a positive or neutral thing, rather than the negative picture of it painted by most of the faithful, I'd say we've done something WORTH having been done.

It may even convince more people to join our side of the debate. I do accept that the fiery rhetoric of Dawkins and Harris can be a double-edged sword, inspiring the rational community while inflaming the faithful to action. But I guess that, as long as more people THINK and question their choices, and as long as (in the long run) larger numbers talk about and accept the rationalist viewpoint than join the other side to crusade against it, the "evangelical" atheists will have succeeded.

And, most importantly, by aiming high we keep our movement VISIBLE, which counts for a lot. It means that decisions like the PA one that cut Intelligent Design to ribbons don't go unnoticed and uncontested by those on our side. It's lofty to hope that all faith-based nonsense can be totally removed from public schools, but removing even a small percentage (much like the 1% of an eye Dawkins mentions in The Blind Watchmaker) is SURELY better than removing none at all.

Sorry for the rant, I know it was a bit long-winded...but I can't stress the benefits of consciousness-raising enough...back to your regularly scheduled program.

Cheers!

134. How Full Is Your Quiver?

Comment #8319 by Jared on November 20, 2006 at 9:19 pm

Re: Melisande (comment #8317)

To be honest, all of this talk of "quivers" brings out the two contradictory impulses of my nature.

On the one hand, I keep thinking of the "quiver" metaphorically for some kind of ammunition...as in how full my quiver of logic might need to be in getting involved with the debate over rationalism.

On the other hand, the side of me that still seems to have a lot of growing up to do thinks of it as a TERRIBLY inappropriate pick-up line...

"Why hello there...how full is YOUR quiver??"

Is it wrong to admit amusment? Gosh, I sure hope not!

Cheers.

135. The sexiest man living!

Comment #8316 by Jared on November 20, 2006 at 9:14 pm

I have to admit, the ladies' responses here have me almost wanting to revert my stance on not becoming an academic! Maybe what everyone has always said about brains trumping beauty is actually true.

Although I guess film studies isn't exactly as contentious or logically rigorous a discipline as evolutionary biology. And I'm certainly not rich...or British...or charming. Darn.

But I am studying in England...and I'm kind of smart...so maybe that counts for something, eh?

Cheers!

136. BEYOND REDUCTIONISM: Reinventing The Sacred

Comment #8303 by Jared on November 20, 2006 at 8:48 pm

Re: johnc (comment #8282):

I agree with your logic, for the most part. I still personally dislike the invocation of god, as it seems a muddying of the waters, but can perhaps admit that it may have usefulness. Just not from my own mouth!

Also, I guess I'm sort of in the Dawkins camp on reductionism. To me, I find no "cold pointlessness" in reducing things to as simple of terms as can be managed. I personally get a profound sense of wonder whenever I think of how EVERYTHING essentially (in theory) comes from a couple of handfuls of basic rules. Almost the same appreciation I get when looking at the wide range of animals and plants that have arisen through natural selection.

I'm not about to quibble about whether reductionism truly answers all questions, as I'm certainly not academically prepared to do so. I guess I'm merely stating that, if (as Kauffman seems to think) our worst case scenario is a reductionist one, I for one am more than prepared to live in such a world. I suppose through some sort of higher-level pointlessness, I can be free to privilege whatever purposes I may apply to my own short span of years.

All that being said, I can STILL understand how many people (especially Theists and newly-minted non-Theists) might not find my level of comfort and elegance in a reductionist world.

Sorry for the lengthy reply rant, your post sort of got me off on a tangent!

Cheers!

137. How Full Is Your Quiver?

Comment #8297 by Jared on November 20, 2006 at 8:35 pm

Re: Comment #8286 by GunnBrotherCol

" :) You have great faith my friend."

Faith? Nay. Faith would be saying "WHEN we conquer aging and death through scientific means." It's HOPE that says "Not IF"

Hope and faith are very different things. Hope is about the optimism of possibilities, tacitly admitting that the hoped-for outcome is no guarantee. Faith is about certainty against all arguments to the contrary.

/At least, that's my take on it.

138. BEYOND REDUCTIONISM: Reinventing The Sacred

Comment #8256 by Jared on November 20, 2006 at 6:20 pm

I can't say I know what site you're talking about, Theo...All I can say is that this is the last off topic response I'll be making. It's two and then I'm out...that's my rule on threadjacking. Feel free to make me pay all you like, though. Or 'us,' as you seem to think that word significant.

Cheers!

139. BEYOND REDUCTIONISM: Reinventing The Sacred

Comment #8237 by Jared on November 20, 2006 at 5:31 pm

RE: Post 7: Theo, comment #8233

Aww, come on! If you're going to troll, you have to build it up over a couple of posts. Getting it all out in one go only makes us laugh. Keep at it, I'm sure you'll get it one day.

Cheers!

140. How Full Is Your Quiver?

Comment #8210 by Jared on November 20, 2006 at 4:03 pm

Whoops. Post 17 (comment #8207) was me. Sorry about that.

141. BEYOND REDUCTIONISM: Reinventing The Sacred

Comment #8201 by Jared on November 20, 2006 at 3:52 pm

Phew...that was a big one to get through, and I'm MOSTLY glad I did. The way it started sounded a bit...sketchy, but I guess it pulls together in its own way.

I personally disagree with naming the "creativity" of the world "God." I think that name is already far too well spoken for, and would prefer to leave it out if at all possible.

I'm also not entirely sure about the little plug for "group selection" down at the end of the article, but I suppose that's only because I haven't read anything else that, to me, supports group selection as the ONLY means by which any particular changes come about. Not to say that I'm well read, though, so I would consider such evidence if I found it.

I guess what I disagree with most, however, is the idea that we need to be soft spoken. I guess there will be time for that later, maybe if the rational worldview ever becomes more well-established and respected rather than just mistrusted and slandered by the faithful.

But for now, it's too risky to coddle the faithful too much. I'm afraid most people WOULD NOT give up their intervening, personal god, even if shown the idea that god is merely "creativity" in complex systems.

They'd probably adopt that creativity as only another facet of what makes their own particular flavor of deity superior to all the others. "See, he gave the world CREATIVITY! God knows all!"

Still, I'm rather interested in the sorts of things this article talks about. I'd love to see what OTHER scientists say about his ideas, though. But that's just skepticism for you, I guess...I can't apply it selectively :)

142. How Full Is Your Quiver?

Comment #8184 by Jared on November 20, 2006 at 3:20 pm

Just what we needed. It'll be the downfall of the rationalist movement that these people will always outpropagate us. It's always been the case with the religious, but these guys just take the cake.

143. Atheists: The New Gays

Comment #7998 by Jared on November 20, 2006 at 5:27 am

A bit of a muddled take, especially given that study suggesting that atheists are still less trusted than any other group (counter to Scott Adams's assumptions about who Christians want to have next door). But on the whole, it's nice to see someone supportive of this whole consciousness-raising project.

However, Bill Gates for president? Not so sure I count myself ready to jump off that bridge just yet.

144. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #7979 by Jared on November 20, 2006 at 3:34 am

From the flyer:

"This talk will present clear evidence, not only that the God of the bible does indeed exist[...]"

Whoa, really? This is a first! We should all go and see what this evidence is like. I for one can't wait to hand in my atheist club membership card.

When are these people going to learn that feelings of wonder and words written 2000 years ago just don't count as evidence if you've got nothing else to back them up?

145. Top court refuses to hear whether religion can be a murder defence

Comment #7976 by Jared on November 20, 2006 at 3:28 am

Well, I guess this decision puts off Canada's slide into absolute cultural relativism for one more day...

(I kid, I kid! Or do I?)

146. 42% think faith is as evil as smallpox

Comment #7882 by Jared on November 19, 2006 at 6:54 pm

Glad to see the statistics mentioned in the previous article given a bit more clarification here. At least this bit doesn't make my eyes roll back into my head when I attempt to read it.

I also agree with vega in that I'd love to see the results of the same poll around the world, particularly my home country of the US. I have a feeling they'd be different in interesting ways. But perhaps I'm a bit masochistic and only want to see just how unpopular my own point of view is in my native land.

147. Future generations will hear far more about God and politics

Comment #7881 by Jared on November 19, 2006 at 6:48 pm

Oh thank goodness. Thank goodness that you've all had the same trouble understanding this absurd little article that I've had.

I was seriously beginning to wonder whether or not I'd lost my mind. I tried to respond to this earlier but THE WORDS WOULD NOT COME.

Sorry to post after the "line in the sand"...perhaps we make a new one HERE.

148. Dawkins's version of the deity does not exist

Comment #7479 by Jared on November 18, 2006 at 3:26 pm

Re: Vega (Post 1, comment 7457)

That's one of the best ways of defining the special pleading of Theism I've yet read. Well done. Is that of your own design, or have you read it somewhere?

149. Dawkins's version of the deity does not exist

Comment #7475 by Jared on November 18, 2006 at 3:21 pm

From the article:
"He has no awareness of God as existing entirely outside the universe, whose existence is his essence, and to whose characteristics we can only refer through limited human understanding"

No, and neither has the author, nor anyone else. A god existing outside of everything can, by its own very definition, NOT be a god of which we can be aware. Our "limited human understanding" is so limited in regards to anything that cannot be reproduced or detected that positing ANYTHING about it at all is inherently flawed.

And, again, how many average believers would give you this definition of god? And how many would refer you to the bearded fellow on the ceiling of the Cistine chapel? It's this belief that Dawkins is PRIMARILY attacking.

The other belief is commonly known as "special pleading" or the invisible fire breathing dragon in the garage. If the only thing giving you evidence of something's existence is a certain feeling in your mind, then the odds are that a feeling in the mind is all it is.

If that feeling in your mind makes you happy, then congratulations. But it doesn't get everyone, nor does everyone attribute it to an ineffable god.

There are plenty of things we'll never know thanks to our "limited human understanding," and the origin of life and of emotions may or may not be two such things. But that doesn't mean that we have to make the jump to crediting a god.

"The rational cannot be caused by the non-rational."

I'd like to see some documentation as to why exactly that is the case. Especially as the appearance of rationality and rationality itself are two different things.

The last bit about "needing" a theology background or a "ready adviser" is somewhat amusing as it implies that the rest of the faithful aren't able to hold their ground against Dawkins (or aren't smart enough to understand him.) Neither of those two options make the author appear to be terribly confident in the general crowd.

I'm also wondering what they mean by "the infidelity of Christians to their true religion," as I'm sure each group of Christians has a very different idea of what their "true religion" is and, I daresay, I don't think this author is speaking for all Catholics, either. Most Catholics seem to believe in a personal god who answers prayers. I'd argue that that is out-of-step with the "essential" god the author posits.

And, obviously, I find it a bit hypocritical that the author seems to accept evolution yet STILL thinks that humanity is some sort of prized species rather than just another one of billions of past and present evolved life-forms. If you believe in the science, there is no other thing we can be. To deny that is having your cake and eating it too.

Still, I suppose this was as fair of a critique as any mainstream religious group is likely to give the book. At least he recommends that SOME people read it, after all.

150. My God Problem

Comment #7365 by Jared on November 18, 2006 at 11:35 am

Maryhelena,

Thanks for taking the time to answer my criticisms. I still do not see any reason why democracy and sacrifice have to be tied to one another, nor why either must needs immediately be tied to theology and Christian theology. I can see specific cases where this has occurred, but no reason to assume it is the general rule.

"One person, one vote" may not always turn out fair, and there are no doubt many troubling aspects to that issue. But I honestly don't think that the troubles of democracy necessarily are religious in nature. I'm as non-religious as anyone you're going to meet, so it's not as if I frequently enjoy defending it. I just think that, in this case, your hybrid of theology/democracy casts too wide of an umbrella and is unrealistic and somewhat unfair to BOTH religion and democracy.

I think that using "redistribution" as a term against democracy is also a bit of a mischaracterization. Redistrubition of wealth is very much a socialist/communist idea. American democracy does not invoke the term terribly frequently. I think you are blurring the lines between particular forms of "social democracy" and pure democracy. I am not implying that the US has anything LIKE pure democracy, but it certainly seems closer to that than to some sort of enforced ACTUAL equality.

Indeed, equalitarian concerns, nor the idea of a sacrifice and a beneficiary, do not need any sort of theology. Sometimes the feeling that it is better to help society as a whole than to help the self is just as natural as anything else.

You mischaracterize the concept of the selfish gene quite badly, as it really has nothing to do with the concept of equality in society. It doesn't necessarily mean the individuals containing genes have to be selfish, nor that it is "rebellion" to promote equal treatment of others by the law. The selfish gene merely deals with the idea that genes "want" to replicate themselves, and do so by building survival machines which help them ensure their own survival. This has nothing to do with human selfishness, at all. You quoted Wikipedia about democracy, but did you check the Selfish Gene entry?

"In particular, phenomena such as kin selection and eusociality, where organisms act altruistically, against their individual interests (in the sense of health, safety or personal reproduction) to help related organisms reproduce, can be explained as genes helping copies of themselves in other bodies to replicate. Interestingly, the "selfish" actions of genes lead to unselfish actions by organisms"

You draw parallels to art, you mention Robin Hood, you dance all around. I just fail to see ANY proof on your part that democracy HAS to have Christian theology as its base. The regrettable fact that theology has infiltrated most current democracies aside, there is NOTHING about democracy itself that would prevent a secular democracy from arising.

This is the last response I will make, however, as all of this has little to do with the article above, which is supposed to be the topic of the thread. I tend to dislike threadjacking, myself, so this will be my last instance of it here.

Cheers.